FANDOM


Forums: Yew Grove > ChickenBot
Replacement filing cabinet
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 20 March 2008 by Endasil.

According to the new bot policy I've got to get my bot approved before I can start making it. I've already started and It's coming along. It might do things like:

  • Detect page blanking and vandalism
  • Mark articles that have a low size with Template:Stub but will not add it if it already contains it or if it is a disambig page.
  • Do other temporary things like mentioned above in the Exchange namespace section.
  • Other Stuff (Ideas here!)
  • It might also tag non-transparent pages if I can get it to.

This is not a proposal for botting ChickenBot but a proposal to allow it on the wiki. Cheers, [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|33px]]Chicken7[[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|33px]]talk 06:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that the specification stage of the process is referred to above, I think this proposal needs to be more detailed to meet the requirements in the proposed policy. The idea of the specification is to make the developer plan the bot out before starting to code it, and that's probably what needs to be done here. For instance, having some experience in programming a bot myself (albeit one with a very different objective), I don't really see a way to have a bot tag images lacking transparency; at the very least, it would be quite difficult to code. Most likely, we won't be able to automate it any time soon. This is the sort of thing that should be caught while developing a specification, so that you don't go to the trouble of trying to find a way to do it. Again, some more detail needs to be added that explains which of those tasks will be done and in what way.

Moreover, although this is going on a bit of a tangent, there have been a number of bots apparently starting development in the last few weeks. I could probably think up half a dozen or more tasks that a bot could reasonably perform... these don't all need separate bots, do they? Given the number of bots that have been appearing lately, perhaps we need to have a discussion about this in general. I'm sure we could combine multiple bot tasks into one or two bots given that our scale here is fairly small. No offence to anyone, but it really does make a lot of coding and testing redundant to have so many bots. Skill 07:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OK Then. Well I'm happy to give away my ideas to whoever wants them. [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|33px]]Chicken7[[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|33px]]talk support-the-namespace 08:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't go scrapping it right away, though... the bot might still be useful. Just that with the number of new bots appearing recently I think it needs to be more organized. Skill 08:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Lol OK. But it was getting tiring anyway. I might just leave it for a while. maybe add that to the policy. Cheers, [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|33px]]Chicken7[[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|33px]]talk support-the-namespace 08:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.