Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Luke081515Bot


 * 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.svgSymbol support vote.svg Speedily Approved.

Luke081515Bot
Operator:

Time filed: 01:53, Monday, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, runs at labs

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: No

Function overview: Creates lists, to avoid links on disambiguation pages

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Bot runs, when lists needs a refresh (manually started), he runs at labs

Estimated number of pages affected: unknown, but only at the usernamespace of the bot

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No, but has botflag at dewiki

Function details: This bot is already tested at the german wikipedia, see here (German). This programm searches for disambiguation pages, and searches for links on that pages from other articles. The bot will list them in his user namespace, so users have the possibility to fix that links, find them easier. If needed, the bot generates also lists for single themes, he searches for the wanted categorys of a page. I don't need a botflag for edits, but I prefer the apihighlimits right, because I don't won't to make ten times more request for the server. If wished, the bot can make his edits without botflag, if don't, he will set it.

Discussion
Since this is a userspace task, it's relatively uncontroversial by nature. Still, I'm not clear on the advantage over Special:DisambiguationPageLinks, dplbot/disambig_links.php, dplbot/articles_with_dab_links.php, and similar tools. —  Earwig   talk 02:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The advantage is, that I can create custom lists, where the bot searches for wished categorys, so every user can get an own list, to solve cases at his own subject area, it make it easier for the user, and thats a point that the tools don't have. Greetings, Luke081515 13:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, that sounds fine to me. —  Earwig   talk  09:04, 11 August 2015 (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.