Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MelonBot 4

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was {{subst:Botapproval not required}}

MelonBot 4

Operator: Happy‑melon

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually Assisted

Programming Language(s): Python using Pywikipedia

Function Summary: Conversion of {{GA}}, {{oldpeerreview}}, etc, into {{ArticleHistory}}

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Regularly, when I have time

Edit rate requested: 1 edits per Minute (takes at least that long to work through everything)

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

Function Details: Per User:MelonBot/ArticleHistory

Discussion

This 'bot function' is essentially a userscript - there is so much operator intervention required it can't really be classed as a bot. If I ran it on my username no one would notice - the reason I need to run it on MelonBot is so I can get the bot-size limits on http://en.wikipedia/w/api.php - if I used my normal account, the limit would be five hundred - for a bot account, you get five thousand entries. Happy‑melon 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fair sure you don't need approval for this and you already have the bot flag, so there is not a lot we can do for you. -- maelgwn - talk 23:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great - wouldn't want to not play by the rules though. Happy‑melon 10:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How far along is this code, and are you aware of the archiving for {{oldpeerreview}} and similar? Gimmetrow 23:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, it manages all the templates at the top of Template:ArticleHistory/Deprecation - needs a lot of testing though before I can start stripping out any of the manual interaction. Happy‑melon 10:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as Bot approval not required. -- maelgwn - talk 06:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.