Template talk:Bot

Template:Bot is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Archives

Feb 2007 - April 2011

Given that a bot which has had approval for a limited trial is not fully approved but is nevertheless allowed to make limited numbers of controlled edits, could a suitable alternative wording be added for this? ClickRick (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of possible icons for it: (running process under the magnifying glass) and (running process with a warning). ClickRick (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea, the cogs with the warning image looks good for bots on trial. I think we should get some more comment before applying a {{editprotected}} tag to get someone to change it. Cj005257-public ^{alternative account of User:Cj005257} 12:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like both the icons here for bots on trial - happy to go with cj's vote for the cogs with warning icon. Berek (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both images look like good choices to me. The magnifying glass is not as easy to see at a glance as the yellow triangle, though. Other ideas, not necessarily better: a yellow question mark or ellipsis instead of a triangle. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like both icons, though I share the same concerns about the magnifying glass, perhaps using another colour for the magnifying glass instead of blue, since the glass is barely recogniseable, also could someone change these to SVGs? —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:59pm • 10:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the current icon is the cogs with a green check mark, identical to the icon for approved bots, perhaps a more enlightening icon would be a check mark followed by a question mark. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 19:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another SVG possibility: . Looking back, I think that the words "limited trial" need some sort of emphasis too.

If compiled, the final templates would look like:

This user account is a bot operated by Cj005257 (talk). It is a legitimate alternative account, used to make repetitive automated or semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually. This bot has been approved for a limited trial run by a member of the Bot Approvals Group.

This user account is a bot operated by Cj005257 (talk). It is a legitimate alternative account, used to make repetitive automated or semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually. This bot has been approved for a limited trial run by a member of the Bot Approvals Group.

This user account is a bot operated by Cj005257 (talk). It is a legitimate alternative account, used to make repetitive automated or semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually. This bot has been approved for a limited trial run by a member of the Bot Approvals Group.

Cj005257 (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I would go with the question mark template. It is more prominent than the magnifying glass and more "reader friendly" than the warning icon.--JayJasper (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok definatly enough response for an {{editprotected}} template. Thanks for everyone's input on this. Will go for the question mark if I don't hear anything else in a few days. CJ ^{Drop me a line! • Contribs} 20:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please move File:Crystal Clear question bot.svg to File:Crystal Clear question bot.svg, then change:

{{ombox
 |image = [[File:{{{image|{{#switch: {{lc:{{{status}}}}}
  |active
  |approved
  |trial      = Crystal Clear accepted bot.png
  |inactive   = Crystal Clear denied bot.png
  |unapproved = Crystal Clear denied bot.png
  |#default   = Crystal Clear action run.png

To:

{{ombox
 |image = [[File:{{{image|{{#switch: {{lc:{{{status}}}}}
  |active
  |approved
  |trial      = Crystal Clear question bot.png
  |inactive   = Crystal Clear denied bot.png
  |unapproved = Crystal Clear denied bot.png
  |#default   = Crystal Clear action run.png

to reflect the above consensus. Thanks & regards, CJ ^{Drop me a line! • Contribs} 20:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I don't think you intended to change the icon for accepted bots, so I have changed your proposed code accordingly. Let me know if this is not correct. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you forgot to move File:Crystal Clear question bot.svg to File:Crystal Clear question bot.svg. Your edit was just fine, sorry about the mistake above. Thanks, CJ ^{Drop me a line! • Contribs} 15:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, I think, but I had to change the template to use File:Crystal Clear question bot.svg instead of File:Crystal Clear question bot.png, as the png file did not exist. — The Earwig ^(talk) 15:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you CJ ^{Drop me a line! • Contribs} 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived this talk page to clear up any confusion and left the above proposal here. Cj005257 (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

  }}, please [{{fullurl:Special:Block|wpBlockAddress={{PAGENAMEE}}&wpBlockExpiry=indefinite&wpAnonOnly=0&wpEnableAutoblock=0&wpCreateAccount=0&wpBlockReason=Bot%20malfunctioning:%20}} block it] {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{awb}}}}}|yes
  |or remove from the [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage|approved accounts]]

This (and some earlier lines) creates the following with the default templates: "Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it ."
I want that space moved so it appears only for AWB bots, which seems to be what the one who added it wanted.

  }}, please [{{fullurl:Special:Block|wpBlockAddress={{PAGENAMEE}}&wpBlockExpiry=indefinite&wpAnonOnly=0&wpEnableAutoblock=0&wpCreateAccount=0&wpBlockReason=Bot%20malfunctioning:%20}} block it]{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{awb}}}}}|yes
  | or remove from the [[Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage|approved accounts]]

81.231.245.214 (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That won't quite work. Try | or remove instead. The full requested edit may be seen here. Anomie⚔ 21:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

|inactive

Should be changed to

|inactive = File:Crystal Clear inactive bot2.png

This will add clarity to the difference between inactive bots and unapproved ones. Thanks. FinalRapture - † ☪ 18:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 okay — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I recommend that the coding be changed on this template so that the status displays more obviously (perhaps in bold). Currently it is not obvious what the status is. --Kumioko (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it's fine. No need for every little detail to be in-your-face bolded. Anomie⚔ 02:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, its no big deal to me really. The way it is now its easier to scroll to the bottom of the page and look at the category than to read the whole message to see what the status of the bot is. But since only a fraction of the bots are marked correctly anyway (active, inactive, AWB use, etc) its not really that big of a deal anyway I guess since the message isn't really that trustworthy anyway. --Kumioko (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nulling the template per OP's response. Killiondude (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This contains a minor grammer fix where the current wording of it encourages unapproved bots to continue editing outside of their userspace.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should really just ask for the specific part you want changed or update the sandbox with your code so the reviewing admin doesn't have to try and figure out what you're changing. For instance, it would be simpler to just say "Please add the word 'not' after 'should' in the |unapproved= switch option." or "Please sync with the sandbox." — Bility (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it easier to do this because all the admin has to do is copy the new code and hit the "Show Changes" button to see what's been changed.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with tweaks. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, pasting it into the talk page clutters up the edit window and the diffs. Using the sandbox subpage avoids both those issues, and makes it easy to test the proposed edit (by simply transcluding {{bot/sandbox}} with appropriate parameters). Anomie⚔ 22:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add to the wording about stopping bots. I suggest the following instruction as a least-controversial start, but maybe it could be improved by showing the link without a pipe, or even using the redirect=no parameter in the link. Suggested change is from

To stop this bot until restarted by the bot's owner, edit its [[User talk:{{PAGENAME}}|talk page]].

to

To stop this bot until restarted by the bot's owner, edit its [[User talk:{{PAGENAME}}|talk page]]. If this page is a redirect, edit the original redirecting page, not the target of the redirect.

Vadmium (talk, contribs) 03:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with slight adjustment to wording. DMacks (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is a redundant word "here" in the following excerpt from the source which points people to a bot's local approval:

 In addition, its local approval can be viewed here [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/{{{brfa|{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}}|here]].

The first "here" should be deleted, so that the line becomes:

 In addition, its local approval can be viewed [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/{{{brfa|{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}}|here]].

Since this is a minor typographical error, I am omitting step 1 of Wikipedia:Edit requests#Procedure as suggested for uncontroversial changes.

Thank you! TheSophera (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Anomie⚔ 10:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Is there a way to suppress the text "the relevant request for approval can be seen here" in this template? User:BattyBot has 20 BRFAs, and linking to the first approval may give the impression that it is only approved for that task. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's the |brfa= parameter that lets you point to a different subpage of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/. For AnomieBOT, I created Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT/TaskList as a redirect to a list of all AnomieBOT's BRFAs. Anomie⚔ 12:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - I discovered if I give fill in |brfa= with an invalid parameter, it suppresses the text. Since my list of tasks (and their corresponding RFBA links) are directly below the {{Bot}} template, this works perfectly for me. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! GoingBatty (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging some people for awareness: @Anomie, GoingBatty, and JJMC89: I propose a new parameter, |overridebrfa=, which will ignore the default BRFA path ("Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/"), and allow us to substitute our own. The change is already in the sandbox. Behavior spec: if overridebrfa is not empty, treat that as the full path and ignore the brfa param completely.

Example:

• {{Bot/sandbox|Anomie|overridebrfa=User:AnomieBOT/TaskList|status=active}} →

This user account is a bot operated by Anomie (talk). It is used to make repetitive automated or semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the bot policy. The bot is approved and currently active – the relevant request for approval(s) or tasks can be seen here. Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it with this special link that disables autoblocks.

.

We essentially allow directly linking to something like User:AnomieBOT/TaskList, rather than jumping through the redirect. If there are no objections, I'll update this in a day or two. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the "awb=yes" option needs to change. Thanks to Wikipedia:Notifications, I don't think an AWB bot can be stopped by posting to its talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bugzilla:47962 is the bug tracking fixing the hasmsg API, which I assume AWB uses. Legoktm (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - This bug has been fixed, so an AWB bot can be stopped by posting to its talk page. Happens to BattyBot all the time. GoingBatty (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Category:Wikipedia bots by status says "In theory, this category shouldn't contain any pages itself; they should be moved to one of the subcategories." However, the {{Bot}} template is adding pages to this category, even when the |status= parameter is used properly. (See User:BattyBot for an example.) Could someone please update the template? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have eight categories here (some are duplicated). Of these, four (Category:Wikipedia bots by status, Category:Active Wikipedia bots, Category:Inactive Wikipedia bots, Category:Unapproved Wikipedia bots) are set in the |text= parameter of the {{ombox}}, and four (Category:Wikipedia bots using AutoWikiBrowser, Category:All Wikipedia bots, Category:Global Wikipedia bots, Category:Interwiki bots are set in the |imageright= parameter. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. After Rose's comment, it's not quit clear what needs to be done here. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Technical 13:, I believe @GoingBatty: and @Redrose64: are indicating that this template is categorizing pages directly to Category:Wikipedia bots by status, which it should not, because that cat is tagged as a container category (only subcats permitted). It should only be categorizing pages to one of the subcategories. A suggestion might be changing the line in the template |#default = {{{nocat|[[Category:Wikipedia bots by status]]}}} to |#default = {{{nocat|[[Category:Unapproved Wikipedia bots]]}}}, with the rationale that the safest default subcat is 'unapproved' (i.e. for situations where no cat has been specified). --Slivicon (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Slivicon: Technical 13 can't do anything about it, even if they knew what to do. I don't know exactly what you want doing either, so Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES.. I suggest that you begin by freshening the sandbox (which presently dates from 2013) so that it matches the live template. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: I've updated the sandbox as requested and included my suggested change based on @GoingBatty:'s original request. --Slivicon (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what that will change about e.g. ClueBot III (talk · contribs) or ClueBot NG (talk · contribs), both of which are in Category:Wikipedia bots by status (BattyBot (talk · contribs) isn't any more). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64:This does not fix the problem of bots not being categorized properly. Those bots are not specifying any category, so they are being categorized (incorrectly) by default by the template (Wikipedia bots by status). They will continue to be categorized by default by the template (to Unapproved Wikipedia bots) until the bots are updated to specify the appropriate subcategory under Category:Wikipedia bots by status via supplying the parameter to this template. The only point of this suggestion (and I believe this request) is to address a very specific problem: That since nothing should ever be categorized directly within a container category, as by definition, it allows only subcategories (see notice box), a template categorizing by default to a container category is a violation of the definition of a container category. (Bot) users of this template still need to supply a category parameter to be categorized by the template appropriately, and I do believe that was likely the intent of the template design, but categorizing into a container category is not the correct way to go about it. Perhaps 'Wikipedia bots by status' was not a container at the time the template was originally designed. However, it is now, and steps should be taken to avoid mechanisms (like this template) attempting to categorize pages directly to container categories. Hope that helps to clarify. --Slivicon (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it default to unapproved? Why not create a new category for bots that don't specify a status? Alakzi (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alakzi: Unapproved was just a suggestion, as it is likely the safest. There is also the option of having the template not assign a default cat at all. Creating a new category of not specifying a status is yet another option. My point (and I think @GoingBatty:'s) was simply that assigning to a container cat is wrong, period. Where else it goes is secondary and arguably separate - the fact that it is categorizing directly to a container is wrong and the sole issue being addressed here (although perhaps it is being missed because I'm not explaining it well or something). --Slivicon (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but since we're gonna change the category anyway, can we agree on which category to use? Alakzi (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest Category:Wikipedia bots with unknown status. This flags bot makers to fix the template call more than dumping them in with the thousands of unapproved bots. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Slivicon: I believe I started this thread because I tried to populate the appropriate parameters but the page was still in the the container category. I don't mind if pages with incomplete templates are n the container category. GoingBatty (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: OK. Well, I do mind, as I'm working on improving container categories (that's how I noticed this) and container categories explicitly state subcats only. Also, my understanding of WP:CAT#T is that templates should not be categorized in the same place as the content. I'm fairly new around here, though, so I may be missing something. Someone who I've communicated with in the past regarding container categories, @DexDor: might be interested and able to shed more experienced light than me in the discussion. Slivicon (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re CAT#T: My interpretation (it probably could do with more clarification/examples) of WP:CAT#T is that a content category (e.g. Category:Foos) shouldn't contain templates (e.g. Template:Foos or Category:Foo templates). That's also consistent with Category:Foos really meaning "Category:Articles about foos" and templates (like wikiprojects and dab pages) being kept out of Category:Articles. I think Slivicon is interpreting CAT#T to mean that Template:Wikipedia foos shouldn't be in Category:Wikipedia foos, but we should be wary of extrapolating guidance written with content in mind and applying it to wikipedia administration pages. IMO the case for separating (in categorization) templates from non-template wp admin pages is much less strong than the case for separating templates from articles - and (unlike with content categories) in some cases if a template is removed from a wp admin category the category text should be changed to provide a link to the template. DexDor ^(talk) 20:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re whether Category:Wikipedia bots by status should be tagged as a container category: I'm not that bothered (it's much more important to sort out content categories than wp admin categories which tend to be more complicated). However, if this category is a container category then any template that defaults to categorizing pages directly into it (not in a subcat) should display a message on the page saying that the template hasn't been used properly. If templates are being used properly and are placing pages directly in this category then it shouldn't be tagged as a container category. DexDor ^(talk) 20:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Alakzi (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I have created a photo for inactive bots, and I wonder if mine could be implemented. Here is the link. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inactive_Bot_tag_(wikipedia).png I do not know if this is okay because of the continuity of the Crystal Clear bot images, but my photo makes it clearer that the bot is inactive. Also I am not an admin so I cannot edit it.

Cheers, Groiglery1217 (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that looks awful. There is no way we would use that. Anomie⚔ 22:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That is sort of what i thought. Maybe we could modify the template to state the the bot is inactive in the wording? It would help some newer users and/or users who are unfamiliar with botsGroiglery1217 (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it already say "The bot is currently inactive but retains the approval of the community."? I agree that the status sentence gets lost in all the text. Perhaps moving it to its own line or bolding it for all the templates would help. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. I wish it could though. I like it more than my photo. I would just like it to be more obvious Groiglery1217 (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does.

This user account is a bot operated by John Smith (talk). It is used to make repetitive automated or semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the bot policy. The bot is currently inactive but retains the approval of the community. Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it.

Anomie⚔ 18:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created an alternative version of this template that makes the status a little more obvious at {{Bot2}}:

This user account is a bot operated by John Smith (talk). It is a legitimate alternative account, used to make repetitive automated or semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually. The bot is currently inactive but retains the approval of the community. Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it.

.It could be merged into this template if there is consensus. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally rather not have that merged into this one. Anomie⚔ 01:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely jumping the gun creating it directly in template space without more discussion. That said, I do like it more than just plain text. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. When I put the tag on one bot, it never said inactive. Let me check nowGroiglery1217 (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright it's there now. Thanks Anomie! Let's end the discussion hereGroiglery1217 (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not trump Ahecht's idea though. Users should use both.Groiglery1217 (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change #default={{codebase}}}} to #default={{{codebase}}}}} (as per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Bot/sandbox&diff=848215099&oldid=848215049) in order to fix the error in the last (newly added) testcase on Template:Bot/testcases (use your browser's find within page function (ctrl+f, cmd+f, etc) with the text "mwparserfromhell" to jump directly to the sandbox/main testcases for this testcase). Garzfoth (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for the report! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Rephrase:

in accordance to the bot policy -> in accordance with the bot policy

See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%20accordance%20with and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%20accordance%20to

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have discovered a bug in this template. If an interlanguage link prefix is used in |site=, the template doesn't link to the user page properly (displaying like: ()), because the link is interpreted as an interlanguage link. This affects about 127 user pages.

I have fixed this in the sandbox by adding a colon so the interlanguage prefix will be escaped and link as expected: diff

I have also added a new testcase for this (though the diff showing it added is a bit messed up because I also changed the name from "John Smith" to "Example" in the same edit.) Retro (talk | contribs) 19:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a bot previously in good standing, and which was BAG approved (I was a BAG member and was and still am an admin). The bot - User:Kingbotk - last edited in 2008. It's quite reasonable that after 10 years of inactivity the bot was blocked, but as I link to the account from my own user page it is quite disheartening for it to display "This bot does not yet have the approval of the community, or approval has been withdrawn, and therefore shouldn't be making edits" and for it to be in Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia bots. Separately and together these messages seem to me to paint a picture of misbehaviour which just isn't the case.

I have a couple of questions:

1. Could we have a status=expired with "nicer" text to cover bots which were approved but are no longer active?

2. What purpose does the Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia bots serve other than naming and shaming?

--kingboyk (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If someone whats to code a |status=expired/obsolete/whatever, that's fine by me. As for the indef category, I don't see that at implying misbehavior. It's a tracking category, and serves to tell people who might wonder 'Hey, I haven't seen FooBot edit in a while, I have something it could do, let's ask the operator to run the bot on these pages" that the bot isn't operating at the moment, and that they are probably better off making a WP:BOTREQ. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'm not convinced that we need a category for 'Hey, I haven't seen FooBot edit in a while' as it's likely easier to visit FooBot's user page and see their status than it is to find the category. --kingboyk (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I find silly is that the category is manually populated. If anything, it should be populated by the template. There would be a high degree of redundancy with the inactive bot category though, which is really the actually useful category. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that does seem odd. I'd prefer to nuke the category, but if is to stay populating it from the template would imho be the better way to do it. --kingboyk (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an "expired" status and perhaps a "Retired Wikipedia bots" category seem useful to me. I am not convinced that categorizing bots by blocks is useful; bots are blocked when they malfunction, are against policy or are retired and there is no scope in having an open-ended catch-all list especially when not all retired bots are blocked. A "Retired Wikipedia bots" category would serve the tracking purpose better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added status=expired as an alias for the existing status=retired. Setting {{bot}} to either of those will automatically place it in the category Category:Retired Wikipedia bots. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's much nicer - thank you very much! --kingboyk (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the category for deletion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes and Kingboyk: there is also {{retired|bot=yes}} which gives a "deactivated" banner - we often use this when formally retiring bots who are inactive that also have inactive operators after 2 years. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a developer hoping to understand the logic implemented by bots, I would love if we encouraged linking to the bot's deployed source code and configuration. Introducing template parameters such as download and configuration would be one easy way to do this. Or maybe there's a reason I'm not aware of, that we shouldn't publish bot source code? Adamw (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

@ OM BOX TEXT
-'''This [[WP:VALIDALT|user account]] is a [[Wikipedia:Bot|bot]]
+'''This [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legit|user account]] is a [[Wikipedia:Bots|bot]]
@ PURPOSE
-It is used to make repetitive [[WP:BOTDICT#Automated editing|automated]] or [[WP:BOTDICT#Assisted editing|semi-automated]] edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the [[WP:BOTPOL|bot policy]].
+It is used to make repetitive [[Wikipedia:Bots/Dictionary#Automated_editing|automated]] or [[Wikipedia:Bots/Dictionary#Assisted_editing|semi-automated]] edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the [[Wikipedia:Bot policy|bot policy]].

Summary: Change wikilinks to direct link rather than link to redirects. ~riley (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No need for cosmetic edits. qedk (t 桜 c) 17:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the sandbox here, I've added an overridable automatic short description, "Wikipedia editing bot run by [User]", similar to what {{Userpage}} does for non-bot users. It applies only in userspace non-subpages and only if a single bot operator is specified. Please let me know if there are any concerns before I implement. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (a while ago). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many (if not most) bots these days have multiple tasks, but this template handles them poorly. Unless overriden with |brfaoverride=, it links only to the first BRFA while claiming that it's linking to all of them. Could we set it up so that if there are multiple BRFA pages, it changes its wording somehow accordingly? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with changing it so it links to "approved BRFAs" as is done elsewhere, but I will note a small semantic issue in that the text says "...the relevant request for approval can be seen here" with "here" being a link to the first-approved BRFA. In my opinion that sentence does not indicate that it links to all BRFAs by the bot so I don't think it needs updating from that perspective. Primefac (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most bots with a lot of tasks just make a custom table. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose changing

Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it.

to

Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it with this special link that disables autoblocks.

The real purpose of that sentence is not to encourage administrators to go blocking bots for little things, it is to get them to block it with autoblocks off. So I think making this more explicit would be helpful. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On line 34, please replace "the relevant request for approval(s)" with "the relevant request(s) for approval". JJP_Master (she/they) 07:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]