Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Legobot 4
- 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
Request Expired.
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic
Programming Language(s): Python ( Pywikipedia)
Function Summary: Checks for dead links, reports them on talk page.
Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Weekly
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function Details: Will check all the external links on an article, If any are dead (404) it will make a report on the talk page. It will not edit the article it self.
Discussion
[edit]This task has been run before under different bots which are inactive. LegoKontribsTalkM 18:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Are you using dumps? BJTalk 02:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. LegoKontribsTalkM 23:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just reporting them on the talk page seems like complete clutter. Perhaps it should generate a report in the bot's user space for people to review instead? Keeps things more centralized and won't require thousands of talk page edits. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- It makes more sense to report them on the talk page, so anyone who has watchlisted the page will get the notice. Also, it would be reporting too many links to one page. LegoKontribsTalkM 22:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I tend to agree with MZM, notes on the talk page might be ignored for months or years. The only user watching the talk page might be the creator, who may have left the project long ago, or there may be no one watching the page. I think it would be best to report to a central list. Perhaps if the talk page has more than a certain number of revisions and/or recent edits it could report there as well. Mr.Z-man 23:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- It makes more sense to report them on the talk page, so anyone who has watchlisted the page will get the notice. Also, it would be reporting too many links to one page. LegoKontribsTalkM 22:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just reporting them on the talk page seems like complete clutter. Perhaps it should generate a report in the bot's user space for people to review instead? Keeps things more centralized and won't require thousands of talk page edits. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. LegoKontribsTalkM 23:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Will this be running over every article, or just small lists? If its the former, it should use the dumps. If it finds a broken link in the dump version, check if its still in the real article, then report it. It would be really nice if it could check the internet archive for archived versions and replace the link, but that would be more complicated. Mr.Z-man 18:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- It will only be going over certain pages. LegoKontribsTalkM 23:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Mr.Z-man 17:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Request Expired. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:34, 24 November 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.