Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

Wikipedia Bots
Bot policy · Requests for bot approval · How to create a bot · Bot Approvals Group
Requests for work to be done by a bot · Bot owners' noticeboard · Bot status page · BAG tools
Shortcuts:
WP:RBA
WP:B/RFA
WP:BRFA
WP:RFBOT
WP:RFBA
Please remember that all editors are encouraged to participate in the requests listed below. Just chip in - your comments are appreciated more than you may think!

If you want to run a bot on the English Wikipedia, you must first get it approved. To do so, add a request below. Rather than running your own bot, it may be a good idea to ask someone else to run one for you at Bot requests.

See also: Current policy on bots and Wikipedia:Bots/Frequently denied bots, to make sure your idea is not listed.
I
Creating a user account and user page for the bot describing its functions.

please state the following:

  1. To log the creation of the bot account under your operator account click here while logged in. (Please note that if you fail to do this, your bot may be blocked quickly as a possible sock or unauthorized bot until you verify that you are the owner.)
  2. Describe the bot's purpose, language it uses, what program(s) it uses (pywikipedia framework, etc).
  3. Describe whether it is manually assisted or automatically scheduled to run.
  4. The period, if any, we should expect it to run.
  5. Identify the maintainer.
  6. Add the bot's user page to Category:Wikipedia bots (By adding {{bot|your user name}} to the bot's user page)
II
Listing your bot here.
  1. Replace BotName with your bot's user name in the box below and click the button. If this is a request for an additional task, put a task number as well (e.g. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BotName 2).
  2. Complete the questions on the resulting page and save it.
  3. Edit this page, adding the following text to the appropriate section (replacing BotName with your bot's name):
    1. {{BRFA|BotName|TaskNumber|Open}}
    2. If this is a request for your bot's first task, leave TaskNumber blank (i.e., do not add it unless you added a number to the title of the page created above). That is, use the template {{BRFA|BotName||Open}}
III
Operations Approvals.

Before running your bot you must wait for approval from someone in the approvals group. Please add a link to the approval request to the bot's userpage. Depending on the requested tasks, editing limitations may be placed during trial periods. After any required trials or other community approvals your bot may be approved for full operations.

Contents


Organization

New bots

Please list new requests for bot approval in this section. Be sure to document the name of the bot, your user name, and exactly what the bot will do, in detail. Community members are invited to comment on requests; an approvals group member will approve or reject the bot approval request after a reasonable amount of time has passed for community input.

New tasks for existing bots

Please list requests for approval for new tasks for your existing bot in this section. Be sure to explain the new task in detail. An approvals group member will approve or reject the new task request after a reasonable amount of time has passed for community input.

Need assistance?

If you've waited a reasonable amount of time for a reply, or if you have an urgent issue, you can place {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} onto your bot request. This is intended for use if urgent attention is needed or if a request is being neglected; please do not use it after every comment.

Active trial runs

(Approvals group members only)

If a bot is placed on a trial run, please document it in this section. Further comments should take place there, as will the decision to approve or deny the full run.

Completed trial runs

Once a bot has completed its trial period, add {{BotTrialComplete}} to the request page and move the request to this section.

Approved bots

(Approvals group members only)

When a user has completed a trial run (if needed), and their bot has been approved, please:

  1. Add a clear statement indicating approval of the bot on the bot's subpage.
  2. List the bot here.
Archiving

When a reasonable time has passed for the operator to know about the approval (a few days in most cases), and the bot already has the flag (if needed):

  1. Tag the discussion top and bottom of the discussion with {{subst:Bot Top}} and {{subst:Bot Bottom}} respectively (See this example). Updating the categories is also recommended as in this example.
  2. After more than 7 days have passed on the list of recently Approved Requests, archive the discussion in the current archive.
Archive
Archives

Old Format
Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4
New Format
Approved - Rejected     all subpages of this page
Bot Name Status Last edit Date/Time Last BAG edit Date/Time
StatBot (T|C|B|F) Open SQL 2008-09-07, 06:09:56 SQL 2008-09-07, 06:09:56
Jeremybot (T|C|B|F) Open Bjweeks 2008-09-07, 09:41:36 Bjweeks 2008-09-07, 09:41:36
Plasticbot 3 (T|C|B|F) Open Plasticup 2008-09-08, 17:37:55 Mr.Z-man 2008-09-08, 04:04:58
Lightbot 3 (T|C|B|F) Open AKAF 2008-09-08, 09:14:26 Bjweeks 2008-09-07, 06:16:54
Rick Bot 4 (T|C|B|F) In trial Mr.Z-man 2008-09-07, 17:34:47 Mr.Z-man 2008-09-07, 17:34:47
HerculeBot (T|C|B|F) In trial Bjweeks 2008-09-07, 05:53:28 Bjweeks 2008-09-07, 05:53:28
naudefjbot (T|C|B|F) In trial Bjweeks 2008-09-07, 22:01:39 Bjweeks 2008-09-07, 22:01:39
Kaspobot/2 (T|C|B|F) In trial Richard0612 2008-08-31, 19:27:28 Richard0612 2008-08-31, 19:27:28
FA Template Protection Bot (T|C|B|F) In trial SQL 2008-08-28, 02:00:25 SQL 2008-08-28, 02:00:25
CheMoBot (T|C|B|F) In trial: User response needed! Beetstra 2008-09-02, 12:37:35 SQL 2008-08-22, 06:18:42
anybot (T|C|B|F) In trial Quadell 2008-08-18, 13:26:38 Quadell 2008-08-18, 13:26:38
SoxBot IX (T|C|B|F) In trial X! 2008-08-31, 19:38:38 X! 2008-08-31, 19:38:38
AnomieBOT 3 (T|C|B|F) Trial complete Anomie 2008-09-07, 22:21:35 Bjweeks 2008-09-07, 06:08:28

Current requests for approval

StatBot

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

Operator: Lavernius (talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): Python

Function Summary: Collects statistics. Currently collects spelling mistake statistics and outputs them into a table, on its user talk page (When approved as a bot)

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Daily

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function Details: Scan through pages for common spelling mistakes - As found on [1]. After 50 to 100 pages, it outputs it to a table on its user-page. In the future it may be possible to list the page with the mistake, so that any human can look over it and correct it, if it is a legitimate error.

Discussion

Wouldn't this be better handled by working from a database dump? --Carnildo (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
They are currently on hold right now LegoKontribsTalkM 05:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't mean they're unusable. If its only generating statistics, is there any reason to think there is going to be a significant difference between a couple months ago and now? Mr.Z-man 05:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
pages-articles.xml.bz2 was updated about two weeks ago, and, seems to be getting updated more frequently now, in my personal opinion, it's easier on all parties, to just use the dumps. SQLQuery me! 06:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeremybot

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

Operator: jeremyb (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: automatic (each run manually started)

Programming Language(s): pywikipedia

Function Summary: Talk Page message delivery

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): one time run(s) (depending on approval scope)

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): new bot

Function Details: Talk page message delivery. Will take editsummary, message, and a list of different types of sources for user lists including templates to check for transclusion by user pages, pages to check for links to user pages, and categories to check for user page members. Based in part on bjweeks (talk · contribs) "GPL 3 or later" code. Planning to release the code after some cleanup.

Discussion

Note: there are 2 users named "Jeremy" in the discussion below, Jeremyb is the bot master and Jeremy (User:Jerem43) is the person who made the BOTREQ. Jeremyb (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I know there are other bots approved generally for message delivery but if this scope is too broad I can limit it. Almost ready for trial and have a WP:BOTREQ to run this on: Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 22#Community forum for WP:FOOD. --Jeremyb (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • It looks to me like these people haven't explicitly signed up to receive this newsletter -- it's just assumed that they want it since they're a part of one of the projects. Would it be better to ask them to list their names if they want to receive the newsletter? – Quadell (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that this BOTREQ is a request for a one time only delivery in which case asking people to sign up would be rather pointless. (once they've signed up they already know about what we're going to tell them. no need to tell them again) Will double check with the user that submitted the request. Jeremyb (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that's fine. About how many people would get this message? – Quadell (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
About 90-100 across the twelve projects and task forces. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
So, can this have a trial? I am working on getting a better estimate of how many deliveries would be made but I was expecting a trial could be approved before that was ready. Anyway, I should have numbers in a couple hours. I'll be without network access for about the next hour. Jeremyb (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a one time message notifying participants of a new inter-WikiProject message board and standards drive for Food and Drink related projects and task forces. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the unsolicited nature of the messages needs discussion but I don't have feelings either way. It might be good to spam this to the VP. BJTalk 09:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Requests to add a task to an already-approved bot

Plasticbot 3

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

Operator: Plasticup T/C

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): AWB

Function Summary: Tag PDF references with "|format=pdf"

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continuous, although the bulk of the work will be in the first run.

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes

Function Details: The bot performs a regex find and replace to identify citation templates with field url=http://www.example.org/file.pdf without a format=pdf field. It then appends that tag to the citation so that readers are appropriately warned of the file format.

Discussion

I've never seen that template. No, I was going to use the format warning that is built into the {{cite web}} template, like this. Plasticup T/C 22:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Will it actually examine what is served at the URL (check the Content-Type, magic number, etc.) or just check the URL itself for a given convention? (like /\.pdf$/i)

    What about the reverse situation: a URL which does not refer to a pdf is marked with format=pdf ?

    I was also thinking about the possibility of expanding this to other formats but it seems {{cite web}} doesn't do any checking on the format param and there's no standardization for it's use. In fact the {{cite web}} docs have an example that uses "PDF" whereas your function summary above uses "pdf". --Jeremyb (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

AWB doesn't have the capability to check content types and/or magic numbers. What it is doing is a very simple find and replace for citations containing urls that end in ".pdf".
FIND: {{cite web(.*)url=(.*)\.pdf(.*)}}
REPLACE:{{cite web$1url=$2.pdf|format=pdf$3}}
with a condition to skip the article if it finds "format=pdf|format = pdf|format=.pdf|format = .pdf" (not case sensitive). I realize this condition will give false negatives (skip articles where edits should be made) but I spent quite a while on IRC with some folks trying to get a better regex working and this is the best we could do. Suggestions are welcome. To expand the find/replace to other citation formats one would only have to cut the "web" from the find and the replace string. If this goes well I was going to look into the other citation formats—I am not familiar with their treatment of PDFs. As for the (PDF) vs (pdf) issue, I have seen both used and don't have a problem switching to caps if that is where the consensus lies. Plasticup T/C 00:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm, it would probably be preferable, to check that the PDF still exists (tag otherwise), and that the file served is actually a PDF (tag as a dead link maybe otherwise, and, I know this part is difficult, sorry.). Might also be nice, if you get that second part going, to work in more ref fixes, like, update 'date accessed', maybe title, that sort of stuff. SQLQuery me! 06:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
That sort of thing is far beyond my ability and, I believe, the constraints of AWB. Actually opening and checking the links is part of an ongoing project on toolserver, but it is still in its experimental phases. Plasticup T/C 17:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Where will it get the list of pages to run on? Mr.Z-man 04:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
A recent db-dump. Plasticup T/C 17:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot 3

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

Operator: Lightmouse (talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): AWB, monobook, manual

Function Summary: Janitorial edits mainly to units and dates.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continuous

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes

Function Details: The previous request is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 2, which itself was an extension/clarification of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot due mainly to the suggestion by some editors that solitary years are not covered by 'unlinking date fragments'. This further request is an extension/clarification due mainly to the suggestion by an editor that centuries are not covered by 'unlinking date fragments' see comment on my talk page.

  • I would like to make it explicit that I will be editing dates in a variety of forms.
    • A 'date' is any sequence of characters that relates to time, chronology, or calendars. This includes but is not limited to seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, fortnights, months, years, decades, centuries, eras, and can be in any sequence or format.
    • Edits may add, remove or modify the sequence or format of dates.
    • Edits may add, remove or modify templates that involve dates.
    • Edits may add, remove or modify autoformatting. For example, where autoformatting is invalid, broken or itself breaks a date for readers. Struck text replaced with:
    • Edits may add or modify autoformatting. Edits may remove autoformatting where it is invalid, broken or itself breaks a date for readers.
    • Edits may add, remove or modify links to dates.
  • I would like to make it explicit that I will be editing units of measure in a variety of forms.
    • A 'unit of measure' is any sequence of characters that relates to measurement of things. This includes but is not limited to units defined by the BIPM SI, the US NIST or any other weights and measures organisation or none at all. This includes but is not limited to time, length, area, volume, mass, speed, power.
    • Edits may add, remove or modify the metric or non-metric units.
    • Edits may add, remove or modify the sequence or format.
    • Edits may add, remove or modify templates that involve units.
    • Edits may add, remove or modify links to units.
  • I would like to make it explicit that I will make other edits.
    • These will usually be minor improvements that are often done by other editors or are part of general MOS guidance.
    • These will usually be incidental to the main motivation for the bot which is units and dates.


Discussion

This is not a vote. It is a discussion
  • Lightmouse has proved himself to be an excellent bot-manager in his awareness of editorial sensitivities, his polite interactions with editors who query the workings of the bot, and his prompt and efficient responses to feedback on possible issues with the functions of the bot. He appears to be entirely motivated by a wish to improve the formatting of Wikipedia's article text, and therefore of its appearance and readability; he has applied his detailed knowledge of and respect for the Manual of Style and the other style guides and policy pages that make WP a cohesive force on the Internet. In my opinion, he has already performed an invaluable service to the project in the running of this bot. Please note that this request has been made in response to an editor who explicitly takes no issue with the removal of square brackets around "20th century", inter alia, but has a concern for procedural correctness. I support both that concern and this request for approval. Tony (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This request seems far too broad. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It may appear like that but please look at the previous two approvals and the 140,000 bot edits. The main problem has been that people have complained that the first and second approvals were too narrow. The key issue relates to linking of dates that will autoformat (commonly termed 'full date') and dates that will not (commonly termed 'date fragment'). The first approval for Lightbot mentioned 'unlinking date fragments' on the basis that it would unlink dates that will not autoformat. So the 140,000 edits included delinking solitary years and centuries. The second approval was sought because somebody complained that solitary years were not given as an example in the first approval, so rather than debate the Wikipedia meaning of 'date fragment', it was easier just to give solitary years as a specific example. This third approval is being sought because of an almost identical complaint: namely that centuries were not mentioned. So rather than debate the Wikipedia meaning of 'date fragment', it is easier to reword the whole thing.
I did not want to have to come back and get further approval for each type of 'date fragment' just because there is occasional misunderstanding of the term. I decided to abandon the term 'date fragments' and explain it in bullet points with repeated phrasing so that there should be no doubt. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Approving this would be giving you a blank cheque to change anything related to dates and units. BJTalk 10:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the whole proposal is too broad, per BJ above. In particular, the date section, which specifically says that it may remove date auto-formatting, which is a particularly contentious issue. My current understanding of MOS:NUM is that auto-formatted dates are neither required nor encouraged, nor are they prohibited. Granting this bot approval allows Lightbot carte-blanche to remove auto-formatted dates, which is a decision best left to the editors of each article rather than to a bot. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • On another note, my past interactions with Lightmouse (here and here) indicates, to me at least, that this sort of wide-ranging power would not be yielded with the necessary restraint. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Bellhala, MOSNUM says that the use of autoformatting is "deprecated". Can you be specific about this feeling that the application of the bot would be "too broad"? In what ways? And please explain why the application of our Manual of Style to articles should be thought with suspicion, rather than as a service to editors as a whole. Tony (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Lightbot already removes autoformatting where it is invalid (e.g. date ranges), broken (e.g. [[December 25|25]] or breaks a date for readers. You will see plenty of evidence of removing invalid autoformatting or autoformatting error fixing in the existing 140,000 Lightbot edits. This approval does not seek approval for Lightbot to remove valid autoformatted dates. I would be happy to make this clearer by replacing:
  • Edits may add, remove or modify autoformatting. For example, where autoformatting is invalid, broken or itself breaks a date for readers.
with:
  • Edits may add or modify autoformatting. Edits may remove autoformatting where it is invalid, broken or itself breaks a date for readers.
I hope that makes it clearer. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I support this too, per Tony's reasons. I would support it just as much if it did include removing the autoformatting links, but since it doesn't, that isn't an issue for here.--Kotniski (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would invoke WP:BURO here but the entire bot approval process is entirely too bureaucratic. To not further the problem I dislike these "clarification" requests. We aren't here to argue over semantics, WP:MOS is the place for that. If an editor feels that the bot isn't operating within the spirit its request they can bring it up on the bot owners noticeboard and consensus can be (not) reached there. BJTalk 12:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you give an expanded explanations of the following bullets? I don't want voice my concerns based on any assumptions:
  1. Edits may add, remove or modify the metric or non-metric units.
  2. Edits may add, remove or modify the sequence or format.
Thanks, —MJCdetroit (yak) 16:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
As you can see, I used the term 'add, remove or modify' for all instances of things that Lightbot does.I presume that you are fine with 'add' and 'modify' but worried about 'remove'. Let me state that I have no intention of mass removal of units.
As far as sequence is concerned, I have in the past corrected sequence to put source data first. As far as format is concerned, the convert template often uses a different format to raw text. For example, somebody might write Sq.Ft but the convert template uses 'sq ft'. The word 'remove' makes no sense when it comes to format, the word is just there because I was using a standard phrase.
I think we know each other's editing well enough. There is no hidden agenda here. Tell me your concerns and feel free to suggest modifications of the text. If you want me to remove the word 'remove' from both those lines, I can do that. Lightmouse (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that there are very few times when a conversion should be removed (e.g. in direct quotes), so it may be better to do any removals manually and drop that part of the bullets. As far as 'sequence' is concerned, I think that swapping the order of units (if I am understanding that correctly) is a little tricky and should be left to manual edits. An example of what I am thinking of is when the article is/should otherwise be metric units first (or vise vera) but because of sources U.S. and/or imperial units are listed first. If you swap something like that, an editor's note (<!-- -->) should be left indicating which was the source unit. Also, will your bot be providing conversions from metric units to U.S./imperial units? Other than those concerns, I think you're on the right track and could get on board with this. —MJCdetroit (yak) 01:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you that removal of conversions is rare so I would be happy to drop that option. I simply cut and paste the all-encompassing 'date' section to create an all-encompassing 'unit' section and so I would not have thought about sequence. So I would be happy to drop that option too. As to non-metric units, I have occasionally added them so that is why I want the option but it is not my thing. You will see me doing modifications e.g. 'MAF' -> 'million acre feet' or 'gal' -> 'US gal'. Thanks for your support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightmouse (talk • contribs)
Support.—MJCdetroit (yak) 13:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse knows exactly what he's doing and what he's doing is improving Wikipedia. He is very responsive to requests and suggestions. I'm confident that he's not about to go setting his bot off to do work not supported by consensus and common sense. Calls of "blank cheque" and "too broad" should be weighted against Lightbot's contribution history: Lightmouse has earnt that broad blank cheque and will spend it wisely. JIMp talk·cont 18:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have had to repair about 5 to 10 edits by lightbot that affected articles on my watchlist. I believe the modification of incorrect autoformatted dates should be approved, but the modification of units should be a manually aided process rather than an automatic process. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I have been using the script and I must say it has been quite helpful/useful, but I am still getting the hang of things. I think the bot is a good idea, but I am just not so super experienced with it all yet to strongly support, though I certainly do not object. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What's happening with piped links like 1939? Hiding T 10:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Piped years frequently break autoformatting. I believe that linking piped years is a side-effect of linking solitary years and linking solitary years is a side-effect of autoformatting full dates. I can already see a decline in both. Piped/hidden/camouflaged/easter-egg links to years are now beginning to be more noticeable and some users/projects say that they should not be used (e.g. music project, film project - possibly). Others still like them. Your example was [[1939 in comics|1939]], Lightbot specifically avoids 'years-in-comics' and some others. I hope that clarifies it for you. Lightmouse (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What noises are the film project making? Do you have a pointer? Hiding T 21:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The topic was raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Film_years. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Neither of these beliefs is always true; for example, years of creation are uniformly linked in articles on peerages, apparently on the grounds that context will add value to the article, by giving the reader information on what King, and what Government, created the title - and their political circumstances. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this intended to automatically delink years before 1582? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we are getting into interesting detail but I am not sure if it is too much detail. I do not understand what you mean about articles on peerages. I looked at Thomas Thynne, 1st Marquess of Bath, Marquess of Bath, John Carteret, 2nd Earl Granville, Earl Granville, Duke of Hamilton, and Baron Carteret and all the years links looked like solitary years. I might have missed whatever 'year-in-something' you are talking about. Can you be more specific?
I don't know why you ask about delinking years before 1582. Can you be more specific?
Lightmouse (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I do mean solitary years; if your generalizations are not intended to apply to them, I misunderstand what you say.
  • I bring up 1582 because there has been a suggestion to delink all dates before 1582, as a way of solving the problem of what happens if they are auroformatted into ISO. I oppose that, as unnecessary and likely to cause trouble; I do not want to see it included in the vague language of this proposal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Now it is my turn to be confused. As I understand it, the '1582' suggestion only applies to autoformatted dates because autoformatting can turn full Julian dates into non-compliant ISO. I am not aware that anybody had suggested applying the '1582' suggestion to anything other than autoformatted full dates. Can you give me a link to where this was suggested? Lightmouse (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Rewrite to clarify, with examples, exactly what you want to do, and why you need a bot to do it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I did some experimenting with date and time preferences. A day and month will not, and cannot, be transformed into ISO 8601 format, because that format must have a year. In principle, a month and year could be transformed back and forth to ISO 8601 format, but that does not seem to happen. So if I did my experiments right, and if the code is stable, there is no harm in using autoformatting on a month and day (such as July 4), nor is there any harm in using it on July 1776 ( but in the latter case, it doesn't do much good, either). --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Lightbot will delink solitary years and other date fragments because that is its job. Look at any of the 140,000 edits and the three approval applications. It does not delink valid autoformatted dates. I know that there are lots of people talking about the year 1582 at MOSNUM and elsewhere but that is for them, it simply is not relevant to Lightbot. Lightmouse (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Then what are you asking for, if you're going to run the bot anyway? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not very familiar with the system, but this looks like an extension–formalisation of the robot's mandate. Personally, I agree with Kotniski: I'd prefer to see the date links gone as well, but even without this function I am perfectly happy to support this 'bot. It's doing good work that improves, in simple little steps, article style and presentation on a wider scale than human editors ever could; with a 2,500,000-article encyclopaedia, we sure need it. Waltham, The Duke of 20:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to endorse and support the efforts of Lightmouse, and accept this Lightbot3 proposal. This bot will be a welcome addition to the automated tools at the community's disposal, taking out the drudge in compliance with WP:MOS. I believe that there are sufficient safeguards in the two Lightbots, and the third will no doubt have the same in addition to Lightmouse's commitment to rectify any systematic faults which are brought to his attention. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I support this request. Teemu Leisti (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is an RFA. Do you have an argument to make, or reasoning to share with us? SQLQuery me! 05:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I would urge Lightmouse to be much more specific in his proposal. It is generally undesirable to force enforcement of anything which is not a policy, and the MOS is a guideline which has less than full consensus, most specially because there are too few general editors who have contributed to it. The problem with such a bot is that it can end up trampling on anyone who doesn't agree. I think that a good example of this recently is lightbot's conversion of acres to km^2 (instead of hectares). In this case Lightmouse strongly defended his right to do so, which I agree with in manual editing cases, but not when a rather arbitrary decision is being bot-enforced. I would firstly urge Lightmouse to stop considering the MOS as a policy, and secondly to be conservative in the editing tasks selected.AKAF (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you give a link to the edit that you are thinking of? Lightmouse (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Here [2] is a static link to your talk page before archiving of the section titled "Overwriting convert defaults - from (acres) to (m2) instead of (ha or km2)". The thing which makes me uneasy is the assumption that lightbot will enforce a decision for which there is no consensus. I have a strong opinion on the subject, but it is the enforcement itself which I find problematic, not the direction of the decision. AKAF (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Although date autolinking has been deprecated on MOSNUM, it is NOT (at this time) the case that there has been consensus approval for the mass deletion of existing links. Accordingly, it should not be so used until there is such consensus. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
To Askari Mark: This approval does not seek approval for Lightbot to remove valid autoformatted dates. You will see on this page that I have said so more than once. I am happy to say it again. Lightmouse (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with AKAF but it appears that I am too late because Lightbot is already doing its thing, going rapidly down the alphabet (at "C" now). When did this discussion end so that Lightbot could be turned loose? Also, it appears that Lightmouse himself is removing autoformatted dates (even if Lightbot is not). Tennis expert (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Lightbot has two approvals for its work and has done over 140,000 edits. You are being invited to comment on this third approval request. This does not seek approval for Lightbot to remove valid autoformatted dates. You will see on this page that I have said so more than once. I am happy to say it again. Lightmouse (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    • Perhaps Lightbot won't do that, but you are more than willing to do it yourself. And because you run Lightbot and turn it on or off without much explanation, I believe Lightbot has too much power. Just the "over 140,000" edits is scary. You seem to believe that's a badge of honor or something. Tennis expert (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, since the vast majority of those edits have improved Wikipedia, I think it is something for Lightmouse to be proud of. And if he is removing "autoformatted" dates manually, then that's also to his credit - that style is now deprecated.--Kotniski (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --John (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • This is not an RFA, please come back with a coherent argument. Frankly, I feel as many above, that this request is a little too broad, and, would politely request, that the requesting user refine this (into multiple parts if needed for clarity), into what you actually plan on doing. SQLQuery me! 05:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for reminding me that this is not an RfA. I agree with Tony at the top of this discussion section, so my support may be seen as endorsing Tony's coherent argument. Hope that makes it clearer. --John (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lightbot has proven that it is a bulldozer that runs over everything in its path and puts human editors in the almost impossible position of undoing its thousands of edits whenever it, intentionally or not, ignores consensus. And the ability for any editor to "Stop" Lightbot is meaningless, too, because Lightmouse just undoes the "Stop" within minutes of it being added. Aside from all those problems, I agree with SQL completely. Tennis expert (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • We don't approve requests by counting (unlike RfA *cough*), the support/oppose prefix isn't necessary. BJTalk 06:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Readers should note that Wikiproject_Tennis, according to SMCandlish, is a hornet's nest involved in a dispute about naming conventions. It appears to be stinging everyone that comes near tennis articles even on unrelated issues. User:Tennis_expert is involved in that project. Some editors have asked if Wikiproject_Tennis can justify an opt out from the Manual of Style, see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Wikiproject_Opt-outs_.28and_date-linking.29. The exception to MOS compliance is defended on the basis of preserving the 'status quo' and 'pre-existing consensus'. But the many date defects and inconsistencies in tennis articles are defended on the basis that the articles are 'work-in-progress'. Those are two mutually exclusive positions that may interpreted as a symptom of ownership. Readers may also want look in on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Wikilinking_years. Lightmouse (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

May I add that User Tennis expert (whose expertise in that field I appreciate) appears to be conducting a one-person freak-out about keeping all date fragments bright blue in the tennis empire. This is a pity for the readers and the tennis editors who genuinely want to improve the appearance and readability of our strong tennis categories (something to be proud of, actually), and who want the high-value links in those articles undiluted by useless ones. It's a great pity, but no one's going to press improvements where they're not wanted, and no one's going to edit war or cause instability; that's the last thing we want. As for the bulldozer comment, well, anyone's free to revert Lightbot's good work. No hard feelings. I ask participants here to take Tennis expert's comments in that context. Tony (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this bot so far has done a very good job in the articles I have seen it perform. These are mainly tennis bio articles, where there is a multitude of these meaningless date links. By the way, everybody at the Tennis Project appear to be against the linking of dates. One editor, however, in my personal optic, is against removing links until doing so is in accordance with consensus. How and when this is formed is, however, not clear to me.--HJensen, talk 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Bots in a trial period

Bots that have completed the trial period

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. More approved requests can be found here (), and old requests can be found in the archives.