Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FrescoBot 3: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:38, 3 March 2010

Revision as of 07:49, 3 March 2010

Line 48:

:::I think that those pages with a broken #section link that can't be repaired ought to end up in [[:Category:Pages containing links with bad anchors]] - but this could add a great deal of complexity to your bot; you could tag their talk page with {{tl|User:WildBot/tag}}, and [[User:WildBot|WildBot]] could then come and tag the page, replacing that with its own tag listing the broken #sections (and dumping it into [[:Category:Pages containing links with bad anchors]] until the link is fixed, when it gets removed automatically). What do you think? [[User_talk:Josh Parris|Josh Parris]] 01:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

::::I'm not sure it's completely a good idea. First of all my bot is not designed to keep the [[User:WildBot/m02|box]] "''up to date and then remove it when the links are fixed''". Moreover my goal was to find without any false positive existing uppercased sections (and then fix the link). It's a bit different matter to find ''without any false positive'' not existing sections. At the moment if I skip an existing section (due [[Template:Anchor]], odd sintax, etc) it is not a problem, but if I add also [[:Category:Pages containing links with bad anchors]] it is a mistake. -- [[User:Basilicofresco|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-family:Verdana; font-size:1em; color:green">Basilicofresco</span>]] ([[User talk:Basilicofresco|msg]]) 07:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::You seem to have misunderstood; if you tag the talk-page with {{tl|User:WildBot/tag}}, that's all you need to do. WildBot will remove it, then evaluate the page to see if there are any explanations like you suggested - anchor tags, weird markup, and so on - and if not, tag it as being broken. You need only add {{tl|User:WildBot/tag}} to the talk page, WildBot will do everything else. Does that seem okay? [[User_talk:Josh Parris|Josh Parris]] 07:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)