Archiving problem

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The archive box (with links to the archives for the noticeboard) and the bot that is doing the archiving are not synchronized; would someone fix that? (Thanks). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me go a bit further - if the archiving bot is going to create a bunch of subpages of the format Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard/2008-3-21/foobar, then there should be a page called Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard/2008-3-21, with links to the subpages, and the 2008 archive should have a link to the page Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard/2008-3-21. Otherwise there is no (obvious) way for someone interested in coming up to speed on bot issues to browse the archives for interesting stuff. (I realize that browsing is possibly via the index of pages, but it's good practice to have multiple ways to accomplish the same thing, for the less expert - particularly if what is needed is to modify bot code and create a few more pages and links. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archiving problem 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There's no link in the archive box to Archive 6. The template is gibberish to me; I figure one of you could fix this quicker and easier than I could. As pointed out above, a search box would be awesome, too. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 10 April 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. I'll also move all the archive pages and try to fix up any of the now-somewhat-broken templates, though if I miss one feel free to let me know. There is obviously a consensus here to move this noticeboard to Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard → Wikipedia:Bot noticeboard – Like WP:BOTN currently says, "Although its target audience is bot owners, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here." The rename would make it clear that this page is a catch-all discussion board for bot issues. While the original purpose may have been to help bot owners in particular, it's certainly evolved beyond that over the years. (Alternatively, we could also move it to Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

We'd also move archives and other subpages as well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support either, as proposer, but prefer Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would be a bit weird since bots cannot own anything. We could alternatively move it to Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. In that case, Prefer Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Directions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anyone else think we should add some directions here for what is expected for certain situations? Example: if you don't like what a bot is doing I'd expect you have at least attempted contact with the operator, and if you start a thread about an operator to notify them. Thoughts? — xaosflux Talk 21:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What for? It's going to get ignored anyways. People always report others on ANI without seeking to resolved the issue with the user first. People love reporting botops or bots here if they so much tick in the way they don't like. It makes them feel powerful and righteous.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 21:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be useful to add a short reminder section detailing best-practices, and to include those 2 specific items which are standard WP:DISPUTE resolution protocol. Quiddity (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Part of such directions should be to specify how long someone should wait for a reply from the bot operator before being able to regard them as unresponsive, and there should be a policy that chronic unresponsiveness precludes a person from being a bot operator. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be useful yes. Either {{see also}} linking to WP:BOTISSUE, or some "WAIT ARE YOU AT THE RIGHT PLACE" template (one can be found deep in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader), with some directions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with Cyberpower about people not reading, it doesn't hurt to have notices. Maybe only 1 in 10 will pay attention, but that's one less issue that BOTN has to deal with. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Then we can just Rollback the new threads that violate the notice. XD—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to advice editor to be more polite with bot operators. Bos play a vital role in Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about advice that's going to be ignored. There could be some warning templates for bot operators, as there are for users who engage in disruptive or unpleasant behavior. When regular editors come to the botop, or here, fuming over the mystifying behavior of some bot that's tearing up their watchlist to no apparent good end, they can first issue a level-1 warning that adopts a very pleasant tone. As they wait months, or even years, for the problem to be resolved (note that there are still multiple bots cleaning out the template sandboxes, which is what led me to complain here once), they can issue higher level warnings that adopt increasingly curt and abrupt tones. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Primefac here. I can see no negative consequences of a polite notice here - and it might work in some cases - each one is less to deal with here. It also potentially avoids a heated discussion, where many experienced bot people pile onto a less experienced newcomer, in favour of a polite explanation of a principle/task on a talk page. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never realized this was a discussion, but I'll point out that I added such directions to Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Header, in August 2017. I'm mostly reporting this now so that someone who browse archives in the future knows what happened. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bot owner has retired, should the bot still be running?

Moved to Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard § Bot owner has retired, should the bot still be running?
 – – SD0001 (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idea for a bot

Moved to Wikipedia:Bot requests § Idea for a bot
 – Rummskartoffel 20:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's best for my date template task?

I want to changes instances of the {{Start date text}} template to {{Start date}} and make similar changes for {{End date text}}, {{Birth date text}} and {{Death date text}}. The reason for the change is the templates with "text" in the name do not handle time zones correctly. Here is an example change

bad: {{start-date|July 16, 1969, 13:32:00|timezone=yes}}

good: {{Start date|1969|07|16|13|32|00|Z}}

For {{Birth date text}} alone there are 31,597 transclusions. For further details on what is wrong see Template talk:Start date text#Time zone broken. I'd like guidance on what kind of bot, or bot-like tool such as AutoWikiBot, would be best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h (talk • contribs) 19:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all clear from your examples what is wrong. There is no timezone specified in:
{{start-date|July 16, 1969, 13:32:00|timezone=yes}} → July 16, 1969, 13:32:00 (1969-07-16UTC13:32Z)
The example might be rewritten adding a timezone, deleting |timezone=yes, and still show a timezone:
{{start-date|July 16, 1969, 13:32:00 (UTC)}} → July 16, 1969, 13:32:00 (UTC) (1969-07-16UTC13:32)
Perhaps the problem (if there is a problem) is with the template code itself?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the template isn't working right, the template should be fixed. If the template cannot be fixed, then it should be replaced with a different/working template, ostensibly after a WP:TFD finds consensus to do so. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The template code is broken. I believe it cannot be fixed, because it's too difficult for a template to figure out what time zone offset was in effect at any point time since the first time zone was instituted (New Zealand in 1868). I am interested in exploring how the conversion could be done. If I propose at WP:TFD the templates be deleted, people are naturally going to ask about what will become of the existing transclusions. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first example mentioned by Trappist the monk contains the microcode <span class="dtstart">1969-07-16UTC13:32Z</span> which is wrong because "UTC" is not valid within an ISO 8601 date. The second contains the microcode <span class="dtstart">1969-07-16UTC13:32</span> which is invalid for the same reason Jc3s5h (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing with having "UTC" in the middle should be a pretty simple fix. Anomie⚔ 21:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:BOTN
No tags for this post.