Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval

New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!

• Approval process – How these discussions work
• Overview/Policy – What bots are/What they can (or can't) do
• Dictionary – Explains bot-related jargon

To run a bot on the English Wikipedia, you must first get it approved. Follow the instructions below to add a request. If you are not familiar with programming consider asking someone else to run a bot for you.

Instructions for bot operators

I Before applying for approval Read the bot policy, and check the list of frequently denied bot requests. 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 include WP: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. Click here 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 possible sockpuppet 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 Enter 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. 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 a first request: use {{BRFA|bot name||Open}} For an additional task request: use {{BRFA|bot name|task number|Open}} III During the approvals process During the process, an approvals group member may approve a trial for your bot (typically after allowing time for community input), and AnomieBOT will move the request to this 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 listed here. 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 the bottom of the main BRFA page in the relevant section.

Bot Name	Status	Created	Last editor	Date/Time	Last BAG editor	Date/Time
Dušan Kreheľ (bot) VIII (T|C|B|F)	Open	2024-04-07, 05:50:30	Dušan Kreheľ	2024-04-07, 05:56:34	Never edited by BAG	n/a
Dušan Kreheľ (bot) VII (T|C|B|F)	Open	2024-02-16, 09:24:40	Dušan Kreheľ	2024-03-10, 11:40:20	ProcrastinatingReader	2024-02-20, 13:13:05
BattyBot 81 (T|C|B|F)	On hold	2024-02-07, 14:12:49	ProcrastinatingReader	2024-02-15, 12:09:35	ProcrastinatingReader	2024-02-15, 12:09:35
DannyS712 bot III 74 (T|C|B|F)	In trial	2024-05-09, 00:02:12	DannyS712	2024-05-09, 16:13:34	ProcrastinatingReader	2024-05-09, 10:58:36
SDZeroBot 13 (T|C|B|F)	In trial	2024-03-10, 20:00:57	Sohom Datta	2024-04-07, 15:55:57	Primefac	2024-03-10, 20:57:26
StradBot 2 (T|C|B|F)	In trial	2024-02-17, 03:20:39	SD0001	2024-02-17, 05:58:51	SD0001	2024-02-17, 05:58:51
PearBOT 14 (T|C|B|F)	In trial: User response needed!	2023-12-28, 20:06:39	Primefac	2024-02-18, 20:11:21	Primefac	2024-02-18, 20:11:21
CapsuleBot 2 (T|C|B|F)	Extended trial	2023-06-14, 00:14:29	Capsulecap	2024-01-20, 02:36:30	Primefac	2024-01-15, 07:40:39
AussieBot 1 (T|C|B|F)	Extended trial: User response needed!	2023-03-22, 01:57:36	Hawkeye7	2024-02-18, 23:33:13	Primefac	2024-02-18, 20:10:45
DoggoBot 10 (T|C|B|F)	In trial	2023-03-02, 02:55:00	Frostly	2024-02-21, 22:41:18	Primefac	2024-01-15, 07:40:49
Numberguy6Bot (T|C|B|F)	Trial complete	2024-04-21, 15:48:04	Numberguy6	2024-05-18, 16:31:32	Primefac	2024-05-18, 16:20:28
BsoykaBot 3 (T|C|B|F)	Trial complete	2024-03-23, 02:53:45	Dicklyon	2024-05-14, 21:35:01	Primefac	2024-04-22, 09:48:51
PrimeBOT 39 (T|C|B|F)	On hold	2023-05-11, 12:48:50	Primefac	2023-09-22, 10:51:59	Headbomb	2023-07-02, 17:38:58

User:ST47/BAG

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ArchiveBox

Current requests for approval

Approval status of BetacommandBot as of April 2007

As of 15 April 2007, BetacommandBot is flagged and approved for the following tasks:

• Generating "spam stats" and lists
• Substing templates per Wikipedia:SUBST
• WikiProject templating
• Removing or renaming categories per the decisions of Wikipedia:CFD

BetacommandBot is approved for no other tasks; without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing statement he is specifically not approved for:

• Wikipedia:TFD work but may apply at any time
• Automated or semi-automated removal of "spam" external links; community consensus needs to be apparent before any application is made.

I believe and trust this is a fair statement of BAG's decisions in this matter; any comments or corrections to the talk page please. --kingboyk 00:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

BetacommandBot expansion of task

I would like to have the bot automatically tag catagorys older than 5 days with ((db-catempty}} that remain unused after five days Betacommand 05:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

How would it do that? What would the bot run in? How frequently would you run it? αChimp ^laudare 16:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I will get a dump of all articles in Special:unused categorys and wait five days at that time i will get another dump and compare them manualy, any category that remains on the list is subject to deletion after only four days on the list. once i have the list of old empty cats i will then run the bot in AWB to tag each article with {{db-catempty}} per the deletion policy. I plan to run it no more than once a day, less as the number of empty cats goes down. currently there is 3926 empty catagories. Betacommand 17:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

An initial influx of 4000 CSD's would be a strain on anyone working CAT:CSD, can this be set to only flag new loney categories for CSD? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Does unused cat's include categories that are "empty" of pages, but have subcats? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I plan to use Special:Unusedcategories which states The following category pages exist although no other article or category make use of them. . as for the comment about flooding CSD i have a solution. create a category something to the effect of Category:Categories that have been empty for moer than five days and put a link to it on csd, so that the list can be accessed without flooding CSD and i will also maintain a record of the data I use at User:BetacommandBot/oldCategories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betacommand (talk • contribs)

One comment about the current 3926 empties. I'm sure that a lot of them will remain empty, but is that the number of categories empty after 4 days, or is that just the total empty right now? (those two stats might actually be different) alphaChimp ^laudare 05:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

right now. update(3914) Betacommand 06:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Using a holding category sounds good for the initial run, I've got no objection to using {{db-catempty}} tagging for the rest. Can you implement a check to prevent them from getting tagged on subsequent runs though (e.g. if in holding cat SKIP) ? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

already built in but thanks for the sugestion Betacommand 03:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Would a trial run be possible without having to deal with the 3926 cats first? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I plan to log them under User:BetacommandBot/oldCategories and slowly release the first large CSD over a period of time into the speedy. i was also thinking instead of {{db-catempty}} i create a similar template and put all Cats into it and place a link on WP:CSD so that they can handle the large number of cats as they get time without flooding CSD. Betacommand 03:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC) PS. kind of like a Backlog Category wich i will slowly release into CSD Betacommand 03:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Trial period approved. Please limit the initial run to no more than 500 categories. If possible have the trial include some empty cats created after the trial starts. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Trial run in progress please see User:BetacommandBot/oldCategories for full record and list of pages Betacommand 20:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Can the per page logs check a master or prior page days to not regnerate so many hits per page? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Trial run bloody well unapproved. He set it to tag for deletion hundreds and hundreds of categories that, whilst empty, are key elements in series of categories (like buildings by year, for years we don't have a buliding for yet). I've just sat and reverted them, and I don't have a bot. Much greater thought needs to be applied before approving expansions like this. Please; would this page stop handing approvals out for pointless tasks that don't need doing, and that need doing with a modicum of human judgement? Having witless bots do things merely for the sake of not having them idle is irritating at best. And this particular bot has already had one run of other edits (substs) reverted for also being wrong, and pointless. -Splash - tk 01:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

We do run short trials to see what may happen and require further review before just letting bots go. I'm not sure why we really need empty cats such as Category:5.56mm machine guns (one of the cats tagged). Wikipedia:CSD#1 does state that empty categories are speediable, and according to your statements above these may not even fall in to the old categories that may have contained articles before, requiring further investigation. If consensus is that we should have all of these empty categories, how did we end up with the speedy criteria? Regardless, due to this complaint, trials relating to editing the categories themselves are suspended, but ones that are preparing lists are not. Additionally, there has got to be a better way to keep track of the gathering then categorizing the categories. This bot has been blocked by Splash, pending a response. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well no, there were some that did seem a bit arbitrary, but I wasn't going to manually review each of 500ish categories when ~99% of them needed reverting. I do not think there is necessarily a "consensus" somewhere I can point to about the categories, but it does seem fairly obvious to me (and others at User talk:Kbdank71#Bot-tagging of unused categories) that obliterating large chunks of sequenced categories, just because they happen to be empty is wrong. Empty categories should be deleted when they risk confusion or duplication etc; that's what the CSD is for, not for indiscriminate application. Also, just because something meets a CSD does not mean it is required to be deleted, only that it may be.

Xaosflux, to answer your question, yes, I'm fine of course with someone unblocking the bot once its owner appreciates the difference in the manner it needs to be operated. Not merely asking here and getting an out-of-context nod before embarking on major-sized operations like this without checking very thoroughly, in advance that they make sense. WP:BOLD does not need to apply to bots. That said, I do not view the unblock as at all time-critical; the action of this bot fall well below the 'critical' threshold and in some cases well below the 'useful' threshold.

On a broader note, I'd like it if runs of 500 hundred edits were not the trial size. These have to be reverted by patient humans, and the whole point of a trial is to save time if things go belly up. I would think trials of no more than 50, with well announced trialling would be very much more appropriate. -Splash - tk 02:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Responce:

• A: My bot did not tag anything for deletion.
• B: All it did was state that the category was subject to the old category rule Wikipedia:CSD#1.
• C: If someone lets me know about a mistake i can have the bot revert all of the edits quickly without the overwork to humans.
• D: It has been brought to my attention that some cats need to be kept. I would like assistance in creating a list of cats that are key elements in series of categories. i will use thwm as an exclusion
• E: My bot did only 300-350 edits reguarding this subject
• F: If at any point there is concern about my bot leave a message on its talkpage and it will stop editing until i have reviewed it and have resolved the issue

Betacommand 05:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC) PS: will work according to xaosflux Regardless, due to this complaint, trials relating to editing the categories themselves are suspended, but ones that are preparing lists are not. Betacommand 06:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• A, B: It amounted to tagging for speedy deletion.
• E: That's still a factor of 10 too many for a trial run.
• F: That is a useful feature that you should document on the bot's user page. -Splash - tk 19:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What it is key to take away from this, Betacommand, is that you must check with relevant projects and processes and people before undertaking sweeping actions with a bot that are not precedented. Not before, to my knowledge have categories been mass eliminated under CSD C1, and so CfD should have been contacted before going ahead. This approvals page is evidently rather below-par for making sure of the utility and appropriateness of the editing the bot will undertake, really only making sure it is technically sound and possible. It is your responsibility to do the necessary homework. -Splash - tk 19:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that this bot is a good idea. If someone where create the category, you expect it to have at least one item. Keeping them provides no navagationial value. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 05:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously sequential years have navigational value if I'm a newbie trying to work out what categories I can use without realising I can make them (particularly if I'm an anon and prohibited from creating pages at all). -Splash - tk 19:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• After receiving confirmation that this function is disabled for the time being (logs will still be written for debug purposes, but the bot will not make live edits related to this), I've unblocked the bot. However, if the bot is making any funny edits, feel free to reblock again. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with this task. However, if certian categories are "required" or whatever, why not tag them with a template to that effect? Bots can detect the template and ignore it, and it will give humans the same cue. --Chris (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Chris on this, a template would be a good idea, that makes the bot easily future-compatible, which is important for maintenance of series categories. I think that the task is a good idea, as long as some sort of exceptions mechanism is implemented, and all the needed categories are tagged before the bot runs.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 02:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Splash I object to your to how you have handled this situation you are going against Wikipedia policy (empty categories older than four days are subject to deletion), and you inability to read.

This page meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. It is a category that has no items whatsoever in it, it has been empty for at least four days (CSD C1).
Please Remove this notice if at any point this category is no longer empty

is how I marked the categories ‘‘‘NEVER’’’ did I list it for deletion or attempt to speedy it, all the bot did at this point was state 'This page meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion'. Regarding the fact that the categories are key elements in series of categories show some proof that there are guidelines to keep them and that they are exempt from Wikipedia:CSD#1. Also please show some consensus about keeping them that has more than four editors. That is NOT a consensus on Wikipedia. I am operating per Wikipedia:deletion policy. Please show me some guideline or policy that exist to back up your personal opinion, and the uncalled for hostile bordering on rude behavior you have show in this discussion. Betacommand 19:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The CSDs are things that may be speedily deleted if an admin agrees with you. They are not things that must be. It does strike me that perhaps you don't agree that you should check with relevant projects, people and processes before deploying your bot. That's a little disappointing. -Splash - tk 23:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I was planning to work with CSD to implament this task once i was completely comfortable with the logging and taging of old categories by the bot. you blocked my bot before i could do this. if you will look above i was thinking about putting a link on WP:CSD as a solution but i was planning to discuss this with CSD before nominating anything for deletion. As per above (my previous post) i am still waiting for the answers to the questions about your actions and the what policy that you were using for a guideline for reverting the tags and blocking of my bot. where is there a discussion about keeping them. and the other qusetions that i have rasied Betacommand 04:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am approving this bot on a trial run under the following conditions

1. This trial is no more than 50 edits
2. The bot will not tag w/ any tag that will add items to CAT:CSD, use a seperate sub-category like Tawkerbot on old user talk pages did.
3. If it's a subcategory something should show to that extent (unless someone has a diff to prove otherwise) - if there is nothing there (say the category page is blank) for goodness sakes tag it!

-- Tawker 05:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

done, please see Category:Categories that have been empty for more than four days and are subject to deletion Betacommand 07:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice…and you can see straight off the bat that those "A-class…" categories are each part of a set and should be tagged for exemption somehow. No mistake, this is a useful tool for rootling out categories which have gone unused and unloved, it just needs some mechanism for detecting those which are lying in wait for articles to populate them as part of an ongoing process.
One thing though: it would have been nice if the bot had spelt "Catagories" correctly HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

all A-Class articles are now excluced if there are any others that someone can identify i will add them to the exclude list thank you for your input. Betacommand 17:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is still no good. The trial has flagged a number of categories tagged as category redirects that have very obvious reason to exist for that purpose: to help prevent people categorising articles into them by seeing the red box that says "no, please put them in that category over there". It also tagged one category as meeting speedy criteria when it is currently on CfD. Betacommand, you seem to be unable to accept that BEFORE you do this, YOU NEED TO CHECK WITH SOME PAGE OTHER THAN THIS ONE. I can't make this any clearer than bold, italic capitals, and I've said as much several times earlier. The 'approvers' on this page do not apparently check that anybody actually cares whether or not your bot does stuff, and so you have to do that legwork yourself, before before before before before before before you jump in and do it. Now two of us have pointed out things wrong with this trial, I trust that it is unapproved - again. -Splash - tk 17:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• These kinds of things do not give me confidence at all. There's many categories that are empty, true, but that doesn't mean that they must be deleted. In fact, in most cases, they should not be, as they may be part of broader category schemes that aren't empty. There's no way to instill that kind of AI to a bot, so, as a result, I don't think a bot would be appropriate for this task. Oppose. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Responce: the bot has no AI I am its brain, I am currently working to identify all categories that should be kept like the A-Class artices you pointed out the bot only tags categories that i find, and even after they are identified as being empty for more that 4 days doent mean that they will be marked for deletion Because of some issuse that have been brought up durring this disscusion i was planning to manually examim all of the categories that meet the criteria befor putting them up for deletion. Just because my bot tags an article doesnt mean that it must be deleted or may deleted so far the tags only state that the category has been empty for more that four days and meeets the criteria for Wikipedia:CSD#1 it doesnt list them for deletion all it does is identify old empty categories. Given the issues raised durring this discussion I will review all categories thoroughly before i mark them for deletion. Betacommand 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And if that does not seem to work for this task I have an alternate solution have the bot add all unused categories to a parent category such as category:Abandoned category as of ..... That Would allow users to quickly identify old empty categories by date. this would not involve marking categories for deletion or placing a template on the page it would be something like the orphaned category page only this Would identify abandoned categories Betacommand 05:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

More a question for the categories community, but perhaps a category "categories sometimes left deliberately empty" would help. Rich Farmbrough 21:03 15 August 2006 (GMT).

• Given the issues involved with this Task i hearby withdraw my request Betacommand 16:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • WITHDRAWN BY OPERATOR

NOTE: This specific request has been rejected permanently, but may be superseded by a future request of the same nature. -- RM 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC) </noinclude>

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.

</noinclude>

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.

</noinclude>

to the templates? Reedy Boy 13:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually

[[Category:Uncategorized templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]

--Balloonguy 17:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it add a line break before adding the category? That might not be a good idea because it would add white space. —METS501 (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, because according to the disclaimer on Category:Uncategorized templatesIf you add this code at the end of the template, please make sure that the opening <noinclude> starts on the same line as the last char of the template code. Experiments revealed that some templates became seriously defunct when that rule was violated.

It will be like this:

last line of template[[Category:Uncategorized templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]

but with no includes--Balloonguy 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Can you use query.php to get the page lists, though? (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php) —METS501 (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to use query.php, need help--Balloonguy 23:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I didn't see that you were using AWB. I will implement a feature in the next day or two to get all pages in a namespace through the query.php interface, which is much less taxing on the servers. If you can just wait a couple of days for the next release of AWB, that would be great. —METS501 (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I can wait.--Balloonguy 22:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the easiest would just be to get a database dump which contains only the titles (pages-articles.xml.bz2 which has the contents would work too) and extract the list of pages in the template namespace from there. —METS501 (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there actually established consensus for categorising every single template, which seems implicit in the premise of this 'bot? Last time I checked there was an explicit disclaimer not to do this (though it seemed to becoming "more honoured in the breach", even then). In particular, we've been all around this before for stub templates -- which are normally in their corresponding stub categories, but which started acquiring "stub template categories" some time ago (which were in turn subsequently deleted). If this goes ahead, can you either: exclude anything that looks like a stub template; or, include the whole Category:stub categories hierarchy in the "whitelist" of categories-templates-should have? (Or, some combination of the two.) Alai 20:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I was the one that requested that a bot be set up to do this. I've been doing a lot of work recently with sorting out the template categories (see Category talk:Wikipedia templates for the bulk of it). I've not encountered any disclaimers not to do this, and I would disagree with any disclaimer that said that. My reorganization of the template categories stemmed from the difficulties I was having in locating existing templates on a subject; I kept finding more every way I turned, which frequently duplicated the functionality of other templates.

What I would like to ultimately see set up is a whole series of categories like Category:Astronomical templates, which contain all of the relevant templates for that subject area. This then creates a pool of templates that editors can dip into to find the templates they need easily. I view this bot's task of gathering together all of the templates that aren't in these category structures as a necessary first step along this path.

Note that I've put the stub templates for that subject area in there as well; personally I don't distinguish between them and other types of templates, at least from a subject-orientated viewpoint. Mike Peel 20:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the text of the "templates" category started 'drifting' about a year ago [1], and has kept on doing so ever since. But I'd still like to see where explicit consensus that every template needs to be so categorised was establised.

On the previous go-round of this: specifically, I was thinking of Category:stub templates and its (former) sub-categories: see CFDs (plural, both deleting) here and here. I think similar arguments apply to categorising them on a different axis.

I don't see how the organisational and duplication issues you mention could arise for stub templates: there's a consolidated list of them (Wikipedia:WSS/P), and they're in a hierarchy of their own already. It seems unlikely that someone decides they're looking for "an astronomy template", starts rummaging through that category, and only then decides it's actually an astronomy stub template they're looking for. Said categorisation would obviously vary from the coding of stub templates suggested by the stub guidelines. I don't especially object to case-by-case by-subject or by-wikiproject categorisation (I've noticed some instances of both when "cleaning up" stub code, but retained them) as the presumption that all stub templates must have them. (Should I also mention that doing this will also page-cache-invalidate about half the article space... twice?) Alai 03:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have similar concerns to Alai - I'm not sure whether he's mentioned this anywhere abovce, but stub templates were all at one time categorised into specific stub template subcategories, but it caused considerable problems and was redundant with other methods of sorting stub templates, so these were deleted. It seems very odd that anyone would consider going back to a system which proved more inefficient than the current one, and would be very keen to see stub templates excluded from this categorisation process. it should be easy enough to do, since they all have uniform names ending in "stub" (the only templates which have that form of name are stub templates). Grutness...wha? 04:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, there are other comments on this proposal - mostly negative - here. Grutness...wha? 04:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am _not_ wanting to duplicate existing work. All of the stub types are already listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types; a Category:Stub templates would be entirely redundant to that. However, I _am_ wanting to see the stub templates put into their subject area's category. This aim has grown rather a lot since I started it (I was originally just trying to find astronomy templates for Category:Astronomical templates); maybe now would be a good time to seek this "consensus" from the community at large. Mike Peel 09:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, since stub templates are all automatically in their respective stub categories, all of which are subcategories of their main (permanent) category, they are already in their respective subject area's category. I can understand a wish to make the system uniform across all templates, but it does seem a little like duplication as far as th stub types are concerned. Grutness...wha? 23:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've now posted this on the village pump; see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Categorization_of_templates. Mike Peel 15:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• If (re)categorizing stub templates might cause ruffles, I say shelve them for the time being; meanwhile, there's a whole host of templates whose categorization would, I believe, benefit editors, if only to prevent unwitting duplication. I think it would also benefit the encyclopedia to be able to direct editors to well-populated template categories, so (a) they may see how much template ground has or hasn't been covered; and (b) they may find a useful template they hadn't yet considered. (I've certainly appreciated the latter!)  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• • That's exactly what I'd suggest. If someone really wants to work on categorising stub templates by topic under the "templates" hierarchy, in addition to under the "stubs" hierarchy, the "uncategorised" ones are easy to find: it'd be almost all of these. If someone does a significant number, and it proves wildly popular, it'd be a simple matter to extend this task to include the remainder at that point. Alai 07:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, there are a lot of templates that do not even have a category, I'll avoid stub templates.--Balloonguy 17:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason not to go ahead with trialing this, with the above stipulations. If there's any other large class of templates it's also not 100% clear if they should be categorised on this sort of basis, I'd suggest taking it easy and doing just a few, and seeing if anyone yelps.

However, if you wait a while for a fresh db dump (which should be fairly soon, as the old cycle has (eventually) just finished, but it's well beyond my ken to predict this exactly) then I'll be able to generate a list of candidate templates without you having to do a "live" traverse of the template categories, or rely on catscan, which as I understand it is using month+ replication-lagged toolserver data. Alai 03:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can generate a list than that would be better, I can wait.Balloonguy 21:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Alai has provided me a list of uncategorized templates. I have updated the description accordingly.--Balloonguy

Are you ready to proceed with a trial? Will you be skipping any templates that are already categorized (in case one may have slipped through, or been categorized since the list-making)? ST47Talk 23:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am ready to proceed with a trial. Yes, I will be skipping templates that have been categorized.--Balloonguy 01:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

has permission been given for a trial here? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. Mike Peel 21:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Are there any outstanding issues with this, or are the BAG ready to consider whether to approve for trial? Alai 04:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

How many templates are there to be categorised (roughly)? Also, can someone confirm for the that the consenus at the village pump was favourable (it seems to have dropped off the archives). Thanks, Martinp23 09:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I would guess that there's ~ 50,000 templates to be categorized (User:Alai/uncattemplates lists the first 10,000, and gets up to the middle of "F"). User:Alai probably has the exact number, though.

The last version of the VP archive before the section was archived to "/dev/null" that I can find is [2] (warning: the page is rather long). There were only 2 comments, but both were positive. Mike Peel 13:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The exact number is 37,263, according to the last db dump. It's boggling enough a number that as well as a trial for technical purposes, it might be a good idea to keep the initial run to relatively modest proportions, just to reality-check that anyone really is "consuming" this cleanup resource (as against creating a huge category that it turns out just sits there stolidly). Alai 05:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be better if something like {{Uncategorized}} was added, rather than just a category link? That way, there's a noticeable label on the template to say that it needs to be categorized, and it's more likely to be categorized by passers-by/the template creators. Mike Peel 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I could add both.--Balloonguy 20:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've now created {{UncategorizedTemplate}}. This template will automatically put pages it's used on into the uncategorized templates category. It's separate from the Uncategorized template so that we don't flood the uncategorized article categores. Mike Peel 18:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Half-relevant note: User:Gracenotes/fixStuff.js, a script I wrote some time ago, can alleviate category maintenance by sorting categories using query.php and ajax, and then replacing them. This might be helpful for actually clearing the huge backlog that will result from this. (Right now it uses modal dialogs; this can probably be altered easily...) Gracenotes^T § 17:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OK - Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. for 500 edits, adding a template and (if needed) category, all in noincludes. Keep an eye on the various noticeboards around the place an be receptive to stopping the bot if needs be. Keep the edit rate below 2 per minute for the duration of that trial, and report back here when done. Thanks, Martinp23 15:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What's going on with this? --ST47Talk 10:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Have finished trial. There was a complaint about adding a line break and have fixed accordingly.--Balloonguy 22:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

 Approved. 12:28, 26 May 2007 (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.

</noinclude>

Bots in a trial period

• Staeckerbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved for trials on 16:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• VeblenBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved for trials on 12:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• BrownBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved for trials on 13:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• STTWbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved for trials on 18:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• DRVBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved for trials on 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• AlexNewArtBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved for trials on 05:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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 found here (edit), while old requests can be found in the archives.

• CopyPatrolBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 12:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 29) Approved 11:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• ButlerBlogBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Approved 11:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 42) Approved 11:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 43b) Approved 20:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 44) Approved 20:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• BattyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 82) Approved 12:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 28) Approved 07:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 25) Approved 12:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• AnomieBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 81) Approved 21:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• FrostlySnowman (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 11) Approved 09:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• AnomieBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 82) Approved 19:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 43) Approved 13:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• SDZeroBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 12) Approved 16:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• The Sky Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 13:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• DeadbeefBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 19:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 26) Approved 14:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• BsoykaBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 13:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• ButlerBlogBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 13:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• Cewbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 12) Approved 13:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• BattyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 79) Approved 08:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• KiranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 8) Approved 16:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• BattyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 80) Approved 14:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• ButlerBlogBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 14:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 27) Approved 19:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• BaranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 13:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• BattyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 77) Approved 08:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• Aidan9382-Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 16:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• StradBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 18:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)
• PonoRoboT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 09:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC) (bot has flag)

Unapproved requests

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 the Archive.

• Spelian (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Denied at 01:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• TeckWizBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Denied on 18:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• TW AIV helperbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Denied on 15:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• AxGbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Special:DoubleRedirects has been discontinued by the developers
• DeleteAsstBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Denied on 06:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Shadowbot2 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Denied on 06:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• SoxrockBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Denied on 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• PikminBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Denied on 05:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Expired/withdrawn Requests

These requests have expired, as information required by the operator was not provided. These bots are not authorized to run, but such lack of authorization does not 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 anytime. 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 Archive.

• Botx (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired as of 16:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• STBotT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired as of 20:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Cydebot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Expired as of 03:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• QxzBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn due to lack of consensus, 05:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• VRTbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired as of 04:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• shri23 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired as of 04:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• VixDaemon (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Withdrawn on 04:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)