User talk:Legobot

RFC topic area requested feature
Apologies if this has already been answered. If I add a topic area from Legobot will add that RfC to the respective topic page. If I remove a topic area Legobot apparently won't remove it from that topic page. Could Legobot do this in the future? Schierbecker (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Mysterious non-RfCs
, what happened and ? These three rfcids do not occur anywhere in Template:Rfc, nor indeed anywhere other than the two pages in those diffs. I've seen something similar before, at least five years ago, due to somebody putting an tag inside commented text. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , more than a day later, and Legobot is still issuing three bogus rfcids every hour, see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Unsorted&curid=22862257&action=history page history]. Is there a log somewhere that records which pages these rfcids were intended for? If I can find that out, I can examine them to see what might be triggering this action. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Looking into it now, unfortunately the database is just as useless as the wiki page:
 * Legoktm (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe this will fix it. I think this might be related to the self-transclusion change also brought up here. Legoktm (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, seems to have done the trick. Thanks for noticing :)
 * @Redrose64: Also, just as a heads up, as part of moving Legobot over to the new Toolforge infrastructure, I switched it from PHP 7.3 to 7.4. I don't think it'll cause any issues, but if you notice anything weird, it could be related. Legoktm (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Appears to have worked, -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Appears to have worked, -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Feature request - notify RfC creator when expired RFC template is removed
Is it feasible to have Legobot notify the creator of an RFC – eg with a message on that user's talk page, or ping on the RfC talk page – when Legobot removes an expired RFC template?

Eg Legobot removed the template here, legitimately because the RfC was expired, but I did not realise this for several weeks because: I'd rather not have to show all bot edits on my watchlist, because there are many of them, and generally I don't care about them. An explicit notification would be helpful. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * there was no other activity on that page (the RfC had gone stale)
 * my watchlist normally excludes bot edits, so I did not see that edit
 * It's certainly possible, but for several years now, Legoktm has been unwilling to add new features to Legobot. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think if someone were to write a pull request to do it Legoktm would probably be willing to deploy it. But I'm not volunteering. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC listing has broken formatting
An RfC listed in was added in such a way that the formatting broke. The RfC header begins with a numbered list, which does not format properly in this template. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 11:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is nothing to do with Legobot, which copies everything from the tag (exclusive) to the first valid timestamp (inclusive). The copying is verbatim, it does not alter anything. If there is any problem, it lies with . See WP:RFCNEUTRAL: the statement should not begin with a list. There's an  of fixing it. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Feature request: Allow supplying a custom summary for when the bot copying the first part of the RFC does the wrong thing
Not all RFCs work very well with the vagarities of formatting that are needed to avoid breaking the list pages. I suggest you make it so that something like has the bot use the "Some text goes here." as the summary in the list rather than trying to copy up to the first timestamp, so we don't have to have editors who care more about the list than the RFC itself reformatting things in ways that make the RFC formatting worse. Anomie⚔ 23:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ha, I found a workaround after looking at the bot's code. The bot takes everything between the and the first timestamp, lightly munges it, and dumps it into . One thing it doesn't do is escape pipes, so something like this   results in the listing page having this: The second text parameter overrides the first, effectively removing the div so the text displays properly on the listing page. Anomie⚔ 01:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)