Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BOTijo 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

Request Expired.

BOTijo 4

Operator: Emijrp

Automatic or Manually Assisted:

Programming Language(s): python, pywikipediabot

Function Summary: Change {{main}} to {{catmore}} in categories [1]

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Monthly

Edit rate requested: 5 edits per minute

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

Function Details: Example [2]. {{main}} must be used in articles, {{catmore}} in categories.

Discussion

You are not getting approved for 20 edits per minute. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs 15:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why can't we just put a parserfunction in {{main}} to detect namespace and act accordingly? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs 15:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a good solution, redirect {{catmore}} to {{main}} and choose per namespace. --Emijrp 15:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there are {{catmore1}} and {{catmore2}}, perhaps people prefer to conservate {{catmore}} like now. --Emijrp 15:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Emijrp that we should change it, and I would also have no problem approving 20 edits per minute for such a task which has basically no potential of going awry. I'll wait to see if someone else wants to comment first though so I don't seem like I'm acting against consensus. —METS501 (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems straightforward, though I see no exceptional urgency that would argue for any an edit rate outwith the normal range. (OTOH, perhaps said range should be recast in terms of maxlag-compliance, or the like, but that's a broader discussion.) Alai 02:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And... approved or no? --Emijrp 10:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Approved or no? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 02:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only thing, is still the slightly too high edit rate...? 5-6 epm would seem fair Reedy Boy 10:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. - Reedy Boy 13:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. — madman bum and angel 17:24, 5 November 2007 (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.