Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AloysiusLiliusBot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Approved.

AloysiusLiliusBot

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): C#

Function Summary: Adding date to maintenance tags

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

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

Function Details: Goes through the various Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month and adds the date to undated templates. I realise User:SmackBot already does this but there are always new articles being added to the undated categories so there is definitely enough work for another bot.

Discussion

Do you have an estimate for what the current backlog is? BJ^Talk 12:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes all the time, as it gets cleared it builds back up again. Just as an indication, 319 pages have accumulated in Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements since SmackBot last got to it. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 12:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. BJ^Talk 12:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Trial complete. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 01:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I note that SmackBot has been going over the same articles later and making a bunch of mostly redundant edits, mostly changing "fact" to "Fact". I've asked Rich Farmbrough if he could do something about that, since it's just needlessly wasting server resources. It did, however, catch one instance of {{who}} that your bot missed. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is simply a timing issue - I.E. both bots running at the same time. If BJ were to capitalise "Fact" then there'd be nothing for SB to change. Rich Farmbrough, 09:22 3 September 2008 (GMT).

Note the main benefit is not primarily that there's "enough work": SB could handle ten times the amount, it's more a question of if either bot dies for some reason it's good for the tasks to carry on being done. I have suggested in the past that we build in this level of redundancy. Rich Farmbrough, 09:22 3 September 2008 (GMT).

• I think, having two is preferable, and, there are no real issues here, with causing SB to make slightly redundant edits occasionally (BTW, rich, I think you can turn that off somewhere, but, it's been a long, long time since I've used AWB), therefore,  Approved. SQL^{Query me!} 06:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.