Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FastilyBot 7
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Approved.
Operator: Fastily (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 00:39, Friday, April 1, 2016 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Java
Source code available: When I have written it
Function overview: Finds local files which have been transferred to Commons which are now nominated for deletion at Commons and replaces {{Now Commons}}
with {{Nominated for deletion on Commons}}
.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): n/a
Edit period(s): Daily
Estimated number of pages affected: < 50 per day
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: As described above -FASTILY 00:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See also: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FastilyBot 8 -FASTILY 00:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
editApproved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — xaosflux Talk 10:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Xaosflux: The bot ran against the entire set of files tagged with
{{Now Commons}}
(~1000 entries) and only found 17 instances of files which have been nominated for deletion on Commons. While this is an important task, at this point, I can't imagine that the bot will find more than 1-2 affected files per run. So my question is, should I continue to run the bot every day until 100 edits are made, or are the edits made thus far sufficient as a trial for approval? -FASTILY 06:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The run looks fine this can be approved. — xaosflux Talk 12:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Approved. — xaosflux Talk 12:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.