Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Femto Bot


 * 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 Symbol keep vote.svg Approved.

Femto Bot
Operator:

Automatic or Manually assisted: Auto

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: No

Function overview: Create missing monthly clean-up categories

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Task currently done by hand for the last 5+ years with no opposition, creating 2274 categories currently in existence plus many emptied and deleted.

Edit period(s): continous

Estimated number of pages affected: 73 per month new plus less than on per day re-creations, plus an occasional extra 30-60 when a category is split into dated sub-cats retroactively.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Since it is creating pages, parameter doesn't apply.

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

Function details:
 * 1) Approximately hourly check the progress boxes for any redlinked categories and create them.
 * 2) Approximately 36 hours before month-end check the next-month category list for redlinked cats and create them.

Discussion
This is a non-controversial small task suited for a tiny bot like Femto Bot. Test edits can be seen in the Bot's contribs, speedy approval will enable a number of outstanding cats to be created. Rich Farmbrough, 20:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC).
 * I've just unblocked the bot, but it should not run until trial/task is approved. – xeno talk 21:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * TY, approval for 50 edit trial would be useful. Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Ok, have at it. – xeno talk  21:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fingers crossed. Rich Farmbrough, 23:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC).
 * 38 edits here. Rich Farmbrough, 23:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC).
 * It's doing funky things here. What exactly is the MCUC 1211? It's not the bot, it's the template that the bot is using. Netalarm talk 05:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a diagnostic I put in, should only show on Category:BLP articles lacking sources from June 2006 now, it illustrates a template problem - question posted at WP:VPT. Any template geniuses, or people good at spotting silly mistakes are invited to take a look. I'm currently baffled but just waiting for someone to tell me it's an obvious typo. Rich Farmbrough, 08:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC).
 * Yawn... worked around that issue, but it's stil a 0=1 type of thing. Rich Farmbrough, 14:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC).


 * 48 edits here. Approval would be nice before it gets to 51 and I'm technically in breach of the Geneva Convention again. Rich Farmbrough, 14:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

Seems to be working. Uncontroversial task - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.