Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Bots
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RBA)

New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!

To run a bot on the English Wikipedia, you must first get it approved. Follow the instructions below to add a request. If you are not familiar with programming, consider asking someone else to run a bot for you.

 Instructions for bot operators
I Before applying for approval
  • Read the bot policy, and check the list of frequently denied bot requests.
  • If your task could be controversial (e.g. most bots making non-maintenance edits to articles and most bots posting messages on user talk pages), seek consensus for the task. Common places to start include WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of the relevant policies, guidelines, templates, and/or WikiProjects. Link to this discussion in your request for approval.
  • You will need to create an account for your bot if you haven't already done so. Click here when logged in to create the account, linking it to yours. (If you do not create the bot account while logged in, it is likely to be blocked as a possible sockpuppet or unauthorised bot until you verify ownership)
  • Create a userpage for your bot, linking to your userpage (this is commonly done using the {{bot}} template) and describing its functions. You may also include an 'emergency shutoff button'.
II Filing the application
  • Enter your bot's user name in the box below and click the button. If this is a request for an additional task, put a task number as well (e.g. BotName 2).
  • Complete the questions on the resulting page and save it.

  • Your request must now be added to the correct section of the main approvals page: Click here and add {{BRFA}} to the top of the list, directly below the comment line.
    • For a first request: use {{BRFA|bot name||Open}}
    • For an additional task request: use {{BRFA|bot name|task number|Open}}
III During the approvals process
  • During the process, an approvals group member may approve a trial for your bot (typically after allowing time for community input), and AnomieBOT will move the request to this section.
  • Run the bot for the specified number of edits/time period, then add {{Bot trial complete}} to the request page. It helps if you also link to the bot's contributions, and comment on any errors that may have occurred.
  • AnomieBOT will move the request to the 'trial complete' section by moving the {{BRFA}} template that applies to your bot
  • If you feel that your request is being overlooked (no BAG attention for ~1 week) you can add {{BAG assistance needed}} to the page. However, please do not use it after every comment!
  • At any time during the approvals process, you may withdraw your request by adding {{BotWithdrawn}} to your bot's approval page.
IV After the approvals process
  • After the trial edits have been reviewed and enough time has passed for any more discussion, a BAG member will approve or deny the request appropriately.
    • For approved requests: The request will be listed here. If necessary, a bureaucrat will flag the bot within a couple of days and you can then run the task fully (it's best to wait for the flag, to avoid cluttering recent changes). If the bot already has a flag, or is to run without one, you may start the task when ready.
    • For denied/expired/withdrawn requests: The request will be listed at the bottom of the main BRFA page in the relevant section.
Bot-related archives
Noticeboard
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
Bots (talk)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22
Newer discussions at WP:BOTN since April 2021
Bot policy (talk)
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
29, 30
Pre-2007 archived under Bots (talk)
Bot requests
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88
Bot requests (talk)
1, 2
Newer discussions at WP:BOTN since April 2021
BRFA
Old format: 1, 2, 3, 4
New format: Categorized Archive (All subpages)
BRFA (talk)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Newer discussions at WP:BOTN since April 2021
Bot Approvals Group (talk)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
BAG Nominations


Bot Name Status Created Last editor Date/Time Last BAG editor Date/Time
DreamRimmer bot 6 (T|C|B|F) Open 2025-10-28, 10:06:25 Novem Linguae 2025-10-28, 10:17:11 Never edited by BAG n/a
GalliumBot 6 (T|C|B|F) Open 2025-10-28, 00:18:55 Theleekycauldron 2025-10-28, 03:27:49 Never edited by BAG n/a
DSisyphBot 2 (T|C|B|F) Open 2025-10-23, 22:01:23 Sisyph 2025-10-30, 06:37:18 Anomie 2025-10-26, 23:17:40
AydoBot (T|C|B|F) Open 2025-10-19, 04:29:12 Aydoh8 2025-10-29, 04:37:37 DreamRimmer 2025-10-22, 03:49:16
Scaledbot (T|C|B|F) In trial 2025-09-16, 12:58:39 Tenshi Hinanawi 2025-10-13, 10:38:47 DreamRimmer 2025-09-24, 13:58:59
GraphBot 2 (T|C|B|F) On hold 2025-07-02, 21:00:07 Tenshi Hinanawi 2025-10-07, 11:53:07 DreamRimmer 2025-09-29, 09:17:43
MatrixBot 2 (T|C|B|F) Trial complete 2025-09-07, 18:59:52 Matrix 2025-10-29, 21:35:53 Primefac 2025-10-19, 21:44:36
DreamRimmer bot II 6 (T|C|B|F) Trial complete: BAG assistance requested! 2025-10-07, 15:29:10 Tenshi Hinanawi 2025-11-02, 01:25:38 ProcrastinatingReader 2025-10-19, 10:49:25
DreamRimmer bot 4 (T|C|B|F) Trial complete: BAG assistance requested! 2025-10-12, 13:22:07 Tenshi Hinanawi 2025-11-02, 01:25:10 Primefac 2025-10-19, 21:42:34
Dušan Kreheľ (bot) IX (T|C|B|F) Trial complete: BAG assistance requested! 2025-08-17, 18:09:14 Tenshi Hinanawi 2025-10-30, 15:49:00 DreamRimmer 2025-10-20, 09:49:35

Current requests for approval

DreamRimmer bot 6

Operator: DreamRimmer (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 10:06, Tuesday, October 28, 2025 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: TBD

Function overview: Mark as reviewed all the redirects in the NPP queue that are bolded in the lead of the target article.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Redirect backlog

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: Process all redirects in the NPP redirect queue, which currently contains over 37,000 redirects, and mark those that meet the criteria. The first run will cover around 10% of the total redirects.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Mark as reviewed all the redirects in the NPP queue that are bolded in the lead of the target article.

Discussion

GalliumBot 6

Operator: Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 00:18, Tuesday, October 28, 2025 (UTC)

Function overview: Sorts entries in Category:Redirects from case citations by reporter, then edition, then volume, then page

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: TBD

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): n/a

Edit period(s): One-time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 2,951

Namespace(s): Articles

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): n/a

Function details: Right now, the sorting in this category is kind of a mess. Case citations are in the format "[volume] [reporter.edition] [page]", and right now they're sorted volume-first because it's first in the string, but if you're sorting lots of different citations from different reporters (i.e. different courts), it makes sense to sort by reporter first, then edition, volume, and page. I really don't want to click a button 2,951 times, so, bringing it here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

basically, 470 U.S. 821 should have the sortkey "US 1 0470 0821": U.S. Reports, 1st edition, volume 470, starting on page 821. 683 F.2d 1030 should have the sortkey "F 2 0683 1030": Federal Reporter, 2nd edition, volume 683, starting on page 1030. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to bake {{Unprintworthy redirect}} into {{R from case citation}}, instead of having them as two separate things on every page. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Yes I got leeky into category work. Love this task. Though, contra OTR, I imagine there will be more redirects created in the future which need repair. "GalliumBot 6 will be run upon request if there are >x (20?) redirects in need of categorization", or something similar, would be nice. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I have it as an OTR is that I'm probably gonna have to do a lotttttt of manual fidgeting to get this task to work right; there are gonna be some, but not all, citations with shit like "21 U.S. (8 Wheat) ___", or "F.Supp.2d" without the spaces, or weird defunct reporters, and all of that has to be straightened out probably by hand. (If I had an infinite amount of time, I would have a bot task that detects new court case articles, finds the citations on Wikidata, and just handles everything. Unfortunately, I want to pass my classes this semester slightly more.) I guess I wouldn't be opposed to repeating runs on request, but really, once it's 20 or so left, it'd probably be easier to do manually. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DSisyphBot 2

Operator: Sisyph (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 22:00, Thursday, October 23, 2025 (UTC)

Function overview: Update tennis rankings and career prize money for women tennis players

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): pywikibot

Source code available: fr:Utilisateur:DSisyphBot/Script/màj tennis.py

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): weekly (following WTA updated ranking)

Estimated number of pages affected: ~100 pages per week

Namespace(s): main

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: 1/ Get WTA profile from wikidata page. 2/ Get data (best ranks + career prize money) from WTA profile. 3/ Update best ranks if needed + update prize money if > $US10000 to not spam edit for "small" earns.

The bot has already edits pages on one loop. For inactive players, it is a one shot. For active players, there will be a weekly check. Next step will be to do it for men tennis players with atptour.com site to get ranks data. --Sisyph (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I've reviewed a lot of the edits and they seem fine to me. This saves hours of manual labour on updating rankings and prize money. Do you feel it would be within scope for a bot to be able to update the win and loss totals as well? The only downside is that we'll have to follow the bot and manually update the 'last updated' timestamp at the bottom of the infobox, unless the bot is smart enough to do that too. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note when something similar came up recently, a suggestion was that this sort of thing should be done in Wikidata, or failing that a centralized data page (i.e. a template, a module, or a .json page that's read by a module), instead of making repeated bot edits to individual articles. Anomie⚔ 14:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, for win / loss total, it is posssible [1]. For the current rank, my issue is to get the date of this rank and mentionnent in the infobox, it must be : <!--ONLY UPDATE WITH LAST DATE THIS RANKING WAS HELD, NEVER UPDATE UNTIL THE WTA WEBSITE IS UPDATED (date should be a Monday), THE REFERENCE DOES NOT NEED TO BE UPDATED -->, so not possible so far, it doesn't seem to have sources to find it. For update field, it can be updated if already existing [2]. For wikidata centralization, for sure it will be the best option, like ELO rank for chess players. But I am not skilled to initiate it for tennis players. I will be able to update wikidata if one day it is implemented. Sorry to have edit 2 more pages it was for the 2 examples --Sisyph (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sisyph: Do not allow the bot to edit the English Wikipedia again until it is approved for trial by a member of the Bot Approvals Group. This will include use of the {{Bot trial}} template. If the bot does edit again, the bot account may be blocked until a trial is approved. Anomie⚔ 23:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out it is pointless this bot being used to update career prize money in tennis player infoboxes when the rest of the statistics remain unchanged. Either get this thing to update everything (win/loss records, rankings, prize money) or stop doing it. The current practice is misleading and inaccurate. I have posted this message on the bot's talk page too. Shrug02 (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Shrug02, I can understand your view. I don't agree with inaccurate, but I can confess that only update the prize money could be pointless for some players. My fear to not update this field in the infobox independently (because, yes the bot could be only update when the rankings or win/loss records change), is to be in front a never update (by bot), for players who reach their highest rank. Currently the bot update the prize money when it changes over $10,000, to not update for unsignificant earnings. But I can change to minimum $10,000 AND 5% of wikipedia data current prize money. It means for valuable player already reach $1 million, it represents $50,000 difference before edit. --Sisyph (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AydoBot

Operator: Aydoh8 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 04:28, Sunday, October 19, 2025 (UTC)

Function overview: Replacing DMY formatted dates on articles with {{use MDY dates}} tags, and vice versa.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: [3]

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: Will check one page approximately every 3-5 seconds. If that page does include dates needing to be changed, it will take approximately 7 seconds (in testing) to complete before checking the next page.

Namespace(s): Mainspace

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: This bot will run through pages in mainspace. It will check the page for any {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}} templates, and if exactly one of those is found, it will check for any dates (both in plaintext and in certain date templates) to ensure they are correctly formatted, otherwise it will correct them. I have conducted testing in the bot's userspace (see the bot's contribs) and have fixed any of the bugs discovered in testing. As a side note, I have added an exception for references to the January 6 United States Capitol attack by blocking the change of January 6 on any article to 6 January (may lead to false negatives but I would rather false negatives over false positives).

Discussion

This seems very liable to run into WP:CONTEXTBOT issues. How will your bot avoid editing direct quotes, things besides "January 6", and so on? Glancing at your linked code, it looks like it would even break links and filenames if they happen to contain something that resembles a month and year. Anomie⚔ 00:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If I were this editor, I would plan to make at least 1,000 supervised edits at a reasonable pace using the intended script, checking each of the script's proposed changes before and after publishing. I think I would find that the script has some shortcomings. If you can address them, this bot process may be worth pursuing. Note that editing in this manner does not violate the bot policy, although you may find it tedious. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that editing in this manner does not violate the bot policy Agreed. It would fall under Wikipedia:Bot policy#Assisted editing guidelines, which has some useful information. Anomie⚔ 15:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bots in a trial period

Scaledbot

Operator: Scaledish (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 12:58, Tuesday, September 16, 2025 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: GitHub

Function overview: Update US settlement census data

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Request 1 · Request 2

Edit period(s): Yearly; new estimates released yearly

Estimated number of pages affected: Unknown, likely low 10 thousands

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details:

  • Doesn't add to a template if it sees there are multiple of it on the same page
  • Doesn't overwrite info if it is same age or newer

Discussion

Supervised Test 1 & Supervised Test 2 Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 13:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Since this is your first bot task, I am treating this as a one-off task. For future years, a new BRFA will be needed, and then we can see if it can be approved to run annually. – DreamRimmer ■ 13:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Operator assistance needed}} Anything on the trial? Tenshi! (Talk page) 11:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the trial is not yet concluded.
As part of the trial, the bot was ran twice, both times being stopped due to eventually forming a false association between the database and the article. This lead to the conclusion that the match script needs to be improved significantly, which I will do but haven't yet had the time. I still believe a reasonable fix is possible. Likely, as part of this, a semi-supervised confidence approach will be adopted where, if confidence isn't overwhelmingly high, the association is sent for manual review.
Also as part of the trial, an additional issue was identified. If the infobox population is from <2010, is cited using a named reference, and elsewhere in the body that reference is referenced, a cite error is caused because those references are now dangling. This may be a simple fix, but needs to be implemented.
When both of these fixes are implemented, I plan to resume the bot for the remaining ~25 trial edits. Afterwards, I will request an additional 50 trial edits. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 17:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GraphBot 2

Operator: GalStar (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 21:00, Wednesday, July 2, 2025 (UTC)

Function overview:

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Rust/Python

Source code available: Uses mwbot

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Redirects_related_to_those_nominated_at_RfD and Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Avoided double redirects of nominated redirects

Edit period(s): Continous

Page: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes (but N/A)

Adminbot (Yes/No): No

Function details:

  • Look at each RFD on each RFD Page
  • Determines whether there are any other redirects, in any namespace, that meet one or more of the following criteria:
    • Are marked as an avoided-double redirect of a nominated redirect
    • Are redirects to the nominated redirect
    • Redirect to the same target as the nominated redirect and differ only in the presence or absence of non-alphanumeric characters, and/or differ only in case
  • If the bot finds any redirects that match and which are not currently nominated at RfD, then it should post a message in the discussion (final details about the message are TBD, but the bot request outline the general point). The bot limits the length of it's message, ensuring that the RfD is not over-cluttered.

Discussion

Thanks for working on this GalStar, but it's not clear whether it is checking for redirects that differ only in the presence/absence of diacritics? Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritics fall under non-alphanumeric characters. GalStar (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (30 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – DreamRimmer ■ 06:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Operator assistance needed}} Anything on the trial? Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am on vacation, expect updates in a few days. GalStar (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 On hold until RfD accepts my proposal to use a new templating system, one that is more friendly to bots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GalStar (talk • contribs) 05:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 On hold. For AnomieBot. Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GalStar: Is there a reason why you can't just use regex to find each nomination and use the information from that? For example, TenshiBot's unlisted copyright problems report looks for copyright problems in the subpages which use substed {{article-cv}} (regex: [4], although the script knows the names of the pages already, I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to get that from RfD subpages). Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:57, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. I was trying to do this the "right" way with wikicode parsing, but I'll take a look at regex. GalStar (talk) (contribs) 04:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{Operator assistance needed}} Any update? – DreamRimmer ■ 09:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look this week and see if I can finish implementation. GalStar (talk) (contribs) 05:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bots that have completed the trial period

MatrixBot 2

Operator: Matrix (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 18:59, Sunday, September 7, 2025 (UTC)

Function overview: Make old AfD discussions dark mode compatible

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Pywikibot

Source code available: replace.py

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Think this is non-controversial, but I am free to get consensus if it is required

Edit period(s): one time run

Estimated number of pages affected: Let's assume 40 AfDs per day. We need to correct everything between mid 2024 and mid 2005, which is 19 years. That works out to 19*365*40=~277400 pages 495000 per Cryptic

Namespace(s): Wikipedia

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):Yes

Function details:

The bot will replace <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> with <span style="color:var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>, as well as replace background-color: #F3F9FF; with background-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #F3F9FF);, which will make looking at old AfD archives easier for dark mode users. There are a few variations of the former which I am aware of and will ensure to include.

It will also fix a lot of instances of the "Background color inline style rule exists without a corresponding text color" lint error.

—Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 18:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I know for a fact that this will be controversial, because fixing linter errors on old AFDs had a few individuals bringing out their pitchforks. Please at the very least get a silent consensus to do this task. Primefac (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, @Primefac, could you please link an example of "individuals bringing out their pitchforks" (like a discussion somewhere) so I can assess the potential reasons for not doing this kind of task before I try to get consensus from somewhere? —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 20:31, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main one started here and ended up here. The end result was (unsurprisingly) that a vocal minority didn't like the edits but they had consensus to continue. I'm not saying that you don't have consensus for it (the RFC at least gives an indication it's not outright a problem), and one of the primary movers in that dispute has retired, but part of BOTREQ is that we should have some indication that there is a desire for these edits.
To put it another way, I personally see no issue with making useful edits which assist other editors even though the changes are minor/trivial, but with my BAG hat on I would be remiss if I didn't at least mention the pushback when "sub-sub-subpages of AfD talk pages from 2005 that literally no human will ever visit again" are edited. Primefac (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those apply to this task. The objections to MalnadachBot wasn't that it was fixing linter errors, or that it was editing old closed AFDs, or even the combination; it was that it was editing the same page many - sometimes very many - times each, fixing one user's signature at a time. —Cryptic 18:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a link to a couple of example edits on real pages that show both of the changes that this bot task would make? – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this task. It's not worth running a bot to make 200,000 edits so the small number of people viewing old AfDs in dark mode see some form-letter text they most likely already know slightly better. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: do you know how many people use dark mode? Plus we're fixing lint errors along the way. Paving the way for a more accessible Wikipedia should be important. I don't see the cost, what is "not worth" about it? I'm doing it, I'll happily give up some of my time. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 19:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't the number of people who use dark mode, it's the intersection of the number of people who use dark mode and who visit old AfDs, and the latter set is pretty small in the first place. And you surely know already that large bot tasks inevitably cause people to complain as they are happening. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: ok let's have this discussion in VPP, I don't want to reply twice. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 19:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: Sure. I made an example at User:Matrix/before-after-dark-mode-afd for more recent AfDs. An example for old AfDs is available at User:Matrix/before-after-dark-mode-afd-2. You won't actually notice the background change in the "after", which is because old AfDs have the "metadata" class, and crude dark mode fixes target this class, see phab:T365330. My bot won't remove this class, since the issue will be fixed by phab:T365330 anyway. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 18:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I see the differences, but I don't understand the reason for them. The red text, and all other text, shows up just fine for me in both light and dark mode. Maybe I am missing something; if so, please point it out. I am skeptical of page-by-page changes to address the technical issue of bgcolor without a specified color when the page looks fine already. Is there any way to modify one of the existing classes to address this issue instead of going page by page? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: the red is slightly different on the latter example; it now has a higher contrast with the surrounding text, and fits in with the new link colours; you can try using the WGAC contrast extension to see. You can scroll a bit at [5] to see that there are indeed linter errors on AfDs (plus a bunch of other stuff).
There is no way to modify one of the existing classes, other than place an !important rule in MediaWiki:Common.css, which creates a new host of problems (one being that we are actively trying to stop using that page). TemplateStyles would also necessitate going page by page to insert the <templatestyles /> tag, which defeats the point. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 18:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that there are Linter errors flagged; I have fixed literally millions of Linter errors since 2018. I am skeptical of some of them, however, including this background color error, since it sometimes produces false positives. I won't stand in your way if you want to fix them, though. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: This is not a false positive; we can look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby Lee Marshall and see there is a background color without a foreground color. We have a workaround with the selector "html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output [style*='background']", but the less we use this janky workaround and actually fix issues, the better. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 18:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason AfD does not use a template for the that style part? A template would have made fixing this much easier. Not a an admin, but support fixing lint errors. Also, the previous RfC was pretty clear. I don't see how we need a new lint RfC each time. The small number of people watching these old pages can safely put the ignore bot flag on their watchlist. --Gonnym (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: honestly, I don't know. Probably just people in 2004 decided it should be that way, and everyone went with it. On Commons, templates aren't substituted for i18n reasons, but on enwiki this doesn't apply. Also, if we were to change that, it would probably break Twinkle, Ultraviolet and a bunch of other tools, and no one wants to deal with that headache. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 18:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my 2 searches (1, 2nd one which times out), it seems that this would affect more than just AfD pages. There's a lot of talk pages with old RMs with the same markup. Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:23, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am limiting the scope of this task to AfDs, any other tasks will be discussed at a later date if this is successful. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 18:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The number of pages is closer to about 495000, FWIW. —Cryptic 19:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Cryptic: I was pretty sure my estimate would be way off, but don't know how to do SQL. —Matrix ping mewhen u reply (t? - c) 20:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DreamRimmer bot II 6

Operator: DreamRimmer (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 15:29, Tuesday, October 7, 2025 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available:

Function overview: Replace {{reflist|refs= ... }} with <references> ... </references> when the reflist template has only one parameter named refs.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests#List-defined references format, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 222#Bot to make list-defined references editable with the VisualEditor

Edit period(s): one time

Estimated number of pages affected: ~55,000

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: The VisualEditor can't parse the list-defined references that are based on the template {{reflist}}. This bot will replace {{reflist|refs= ... }} with <references> ... </references> when the reflist template has only one parameter named refs.

Discussion

DreamRimmer bot 4

Operator: DreamRimmer (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 13:22, Sunday, October 12, 2025 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: User:DreamRimmer bot/Task4.py

Function overview: Remove the parentheses around the values of location parameters in citation templates, for example, changing |location = (New York, NY) to |location = New York, NY.


Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Special:Permalink/1316423744#Special:Search/insource:/location *= *\(/

Edit period(s): one time

Estimated number of pages affected: approx. 5000

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: This bot removes the parentheses around the values of location parameters in citation templates, for example, changing |location = (New York, NY) to |location = New York, NY.

Discussion

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Mainly just to make sure things are working as intended (there were some concerns during the BOTREQ). Primefac (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Edits – DreamRimmer ■ 11:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. Tenshi! (Talk page) 01:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dušan Kreheľ (bot)

Operator: Dušan Kreheľ (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 18:09, Sunday, August 17, 2025 (UTC)

Function overview: Edit the page about Slovak places.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Semi-manual

Programming language(s): Wikimate, own code

Source code available: private

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Occasional

Estimated number of pages affected: Max. 3000

Namespace(s): Mainspace

Exclusion compliant: No (The range of pages usually does not have such a need.)

Function details:

  • Task(s) (now):
    • Add population table (see top)
    • Update section Geography:
      • The goal is to avoid quoting from the krehel.sk domain (an older solution that is a relic of the past).
      • Rewrite with reference without source krehel.sk (partial advertising per user now).

The user also did something on other Wikipedias about Slovak places.

Discussion


Approved requests

Bots that have been approved for operations after a successful BRFA will be listed here for informational purposes. No other approval action is required for these bots. Recently approved requests can be found here (edit), while old requests can be found in the archives.


Denied requests

Bots that have been denied for operations will be listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. No other action is required for these bots. Older requests can be found in the Archive.

Expired/withdrawn requests

These requests have either expired, as information required by the operator was not provided, or been withdrawn. These tasks are not authorized to run, but such lack of authorization does not necessarily follow from a finding as to merit. A bot that, having been approved for testing, was not tested by an editor, or one for which the results of testing were not posted, for example, would appear here. Bot requests should not be placed here if there is an active discussion ongoing above. Operators whose requests have expired may reactivate their requests at any time. The following list shows recent requests (if any) that have expired, listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. Older requests can be found in the respective archives: Expired, Withdrawn.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval&oldid=1319897713"