User talk:Legobot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Legobot Legobot II Legobot III Hockeybot ArticleAlertbot TFA Protector

Mark global renames as done[edit]

Requested by xeno. Will look into it today hopefully Legoktm (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Legoktm. With the global renamer usergroup rolling out soon this would be great to have. –xenotalk 01:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Xeno: now implemented in the code, it'll look like [1]. Legoktm (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks muchly. I'll test it soon I gather. –xenotalk 09:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm, is this code live yet? It didn't mark this one: [2]xenotalk 13:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    @Legoktm:? –xenotalk 18:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    maybe i was impatient, or you fixed it. either case, thanks! –xenotalk 15:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Legoktm: it works sometimes but not always. 1 of 3 it marked here: [3]xenotalk 12:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I haven't touched the code since I last commented here. I'll try to take a look over the weekend. Legoktm (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The Technical Barnstar
Congratulations! TheQ Editor has marked Legobot as the 2nd best bot on the English Wikipedia. Doing a lot of simple tasks that humans do not have to worry about. Cheers, TheQ Editor (Talk) 00:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Error in RFC listing when combined with a WP:RM request[edit]

See [4] where Legobot picked up an RfC combined with an RM which results in this [5] erroneous condition. Legobot should not be copying the requested move template, as User:RMCD bot uses that template transclusion to create automated move request listings. -- (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves should not be tagged with an RfC template. Legoktm (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
That it should not be done isn't the same as that it doesn't happen. Could the bot be made to exclude copying the move request template? -- (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The bot copies everything after the {{rfc}} template down to the next datestamp, and doesn't inspect what is between those points. This is why you sometimes get massive chunks of wikicode like this appearing in the RfC pages. Putting the datestamp in a suitable place improves matters --Redrose64 (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Placing the RFC template after the RM template also improves matters. But it still keeps happening [6], as people still keep add RFC banners to open move requests. -- (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Just remove the {{rfc}} - there is no need to add them to a RM, because a RM is automatically in Category:Requested moves and bot-listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

possible GA bot task[edit]

Is it possible for legobot to update the lists of good articles? Many editors forget this step, and having a bot doing it would be great? NickGibson3900 Talk Sign my Guestbook Contributions 07:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:John Bauer (illustrator)/GA1[edit]

Hi, You transcluded Talk:John Bauer (illustrator)/GA1 to Talk:John Bauer (illustrator) for the GA nomination - Thanks!

Since then, I updated the format of the GA1 subpage to use the Template:GATable which I like much more than the list, but the table is not showing up on the Talk:John Bauer (illustrator) page. It does appear as expected, though, on the GA1 subpage. Did I do something wrong?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

OH, thanks anyway, it's working now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC tag removed from Talk:Champagne Charlie (play)?[edit]

How was that tag expired when I had just put it up today? Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Aristophanes68: Assuming that you mean this edit, it's because the very next timestamp was 23:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC). As far as the bot was concerned, the RfC closed nearly six years ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I added a comment to a discussion that was started years ago but had never been resolved, and I didn't think we needed to create a new thread on it. Where should I have put the RfC to not confuse the bot? Aristophanes68 (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I would have added a level 3 heading, and started the RfC below that:
Evidence about the existence of a play seems to be hard to come by. ...
:The "popular actor" George Lemon, ...
::Lemon would just be a character's name anyway, as a stand-in for Leybourne. ...

===RfC on the existence of a play===
Is there any evidence for the existence of ... ~~~~
In this way, it's also clear that the two comments from 2008 were not made as part of the RfC, but are background information to the new RfC. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks--that's helpful to know for next time. Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)