| I | II | III | HB | AAB | TFA | Hale |
| Legobot | Legobot II | Legobot III | Hockeybot | ArticleAlertbot | TFA Protector | HaleBot |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The bot won't let me add categories to the category-based subpages of Wikipedia:Requests for comment, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted, which are currently uncategorized. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- ( talk page watcher) @ LaundryPizza03: Did you read the editnotice, particularly the red bit? Why do you want to categorise them anyway? -- Redrose64 🦌 ( talk) 20:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- You can probably add the categories to {{ rfclistintro}} instead. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
|
Wom Juanese1990 ( talk) 15:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC) |
Apologies if this has already been answered. If I add a topic area from {{rfc}} Legobot will add that RfC to the respective topic page. If I remove a topic area Legobot apparently won't remove it from that topic page. Could Legobot do this in the future? Schierbecker ( talk) 23:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Legoktm, what happened
here and
here? These three rfcids do not occur anywhere in
Template:Rfc, nor indeed anywhere other than the two pages in those diffs. I've seen something similar before, at least five years ago, due to somebody putting an {{
RfC}} tag inside commented text. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 18:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
-
Legoktm, more than a day later, and Legobot is still issuing three bogus rfcids every hour, see
page history. Is there a log somewhere that records which pages these rfcids were intended for? If I can find that out, I can examine them to see what might be triggering this action. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 23:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yikes. Looking into it now, unfortunately the database is just as useless as the wiki page:
MariaDB s51043__legobot> select * from rfc where rfc_id="8C10D2D"; +---------+--------------+---------------+-------------+---------------+ | rfc_id | rfc_page | rfc_contacted | rfc_expired | rfc_timestamp | +---------+--------------+---------------+-------------+---------------+ | 8C10D2D | Template:Rfc | 0 | 0 | 0 | +---------+--------------+---------------+-------------+---------------+ 1 row in set (0.010 sec)
- Legoktm ( talk) 03:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe
this will fix it. I think this might be related to the self-transclusion change also
brought up here.
Legoktm (
talk) 03:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- OK, seems to have done the trick. Thanks for noticing :)
- @ Redrose64: Also, just as a heads up, as part of moving Legobot over to the new Toolforge infrastructure, I switched it from PHP 7.3 to 7.4. I don't think it'll cause any issues, but if you notice anything weird, it could be related. Legoktm ( talk) 04:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Legoktm: Is it feasible to have Legobot notify the creator of an RFC – eg with a message on that user's talk page, or {{ ping}} on the RfC talk page – when Legobot removes an expired RFC template?
Eg Legobot removed the template here, legitimately because the RfC was expired, but I did not realise this for several weeks because:
- there was no other activity on that page (the RfC had gone stale)
- my watchlist normally excludes bot edits, so I did not see that edit
I'd rather not have to show all bot edits on my watchlist, because there are many of them, and generally I don't care about them. An explicit notification would be helpful. Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- (
talk page watcher) @
Mitch Ames: It's certainly possible, but for several years now, Legoktm has been unwilling to add new features to Legobot. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 21:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think if someone were to write a pull request to do it Legoktm would probably be willing to deploy it. But I'm not volunteering. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)