Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FPBot Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/FPBot

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.

Operator: FunPika

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): Pywikipedia

Function Overview: Substituting templates used in XFDs (and maybe other requested templates) such as Template:Delsort and Template:Afd top.

Edit period(s): Most likely weekly or when needed/requested

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

Function Details: Will use Pywikipedia's template.py script to WP:SUBST templates under this section (which current substing bots do not seem to usually go after [1] [2]) and any redirecting template pointing to those and possibly others if requested. Since Pywikipedia is exclusion compliant I believe {{bots}} should prevent it from substing templates in pages such as Wikipedia:Deletion process.

Have you checked with WP:ARS? I think they are a deletion-related project that might be interested in this sort of thing. MBisanz ^talk 08:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at their project page, I really don't see how they would be interested in a substing bot that is for now focusing on deletion archival templates and templates such as {{delsort}}. FunPika 10:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks good Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 06:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. - See Special:Contributions/FPBot. Only 2 minor (I think) problems: 1. It edited Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion which I can add {{bots}} to if this is approved. 2. I accidentally let it edit 51 times. FunPika 21:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not 51!  Approved. on the condition that exclusion for important pages is hard-coded into your code. We don't want any major accidents. Anyhow, non-controversial and other than that doing no harm, so I can but approve. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 08:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.