Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Egmontbot 2

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 Speedily Approved.

Egmontbot 2

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: Egmontaz (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Assisted

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: yes, standard interwiki.py of the pywikipedia framework, daily updated

Function overview: add/fix interwiki links

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): irregular

Estimated number of pages affected:

Exclusion compliant (Y/N):

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes plus 47 wikis: am, an, ar, arz, bat-smg, be-x-old, bg, bn, br, bs, ca, cs, cy, el, eo, es, et, eu, fa, fi, gl, he, hr, hu, it, ka, lv, lt, mhr, mk, ms, nl, oc, pnt, pl, ru, sh, simple, sk, sl, sq, sw, th, tr, vo, war, zh

Function details: add/fix interwikis in main and category namespace only.

Discussion

Will you be running with force off, and will autonomous mode be on or off? I note that you say this is assisted, what's the reason for that? Also, unless you've changed the pywikipedia settings, it should be exclusion compliant. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I never use (or will use) -force nor -autonomous nor a combination of them, that is why I state assisted. I want to know if an i/w Ii remove refers to an actually deleted artcle, and always either manually fix interweaved interwikis or give-up. I haven't changed any pywikipedia settings. I only edit pages (in the main or rarely category namespace) that already have interwiki links (missing some languges) so what is the reason for an exclusion or not?--Egmontaz♤ ^talk 06:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Despite that, there is still a risk that the bot could mess something up (say pywikipedia doesn't update something quickly enough), make sure you leave the {{Bots}} on,it won't do any harm, since hardly any pages use it :). Anyway, other than that, no problems, so Speedily Approved. as uncontroversial interwiki linking bot - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:08, 29 April 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.