Revision as of 06:38, 28 April 2023 by MyScratchedAccount (talk | contribs) (Preparing for my April Fools version)


For an explanation of how to use this page and request a bot, see the bot request instructions. Make sure your bot is not a duplicate or a commonly rejected idea.

Note Note: The Vote section is used after a vote on if the bot should be used, and shows the number of people who approved/declined the idea of the bot. Please note, a formal vote may not be needed to decline/accept a bot, therefore it is not compulsory to fill this box in. The comment briefly describes any important information about the bot at this moment, especially changes that need to be made.
Note Note: Remember to add a section to the table with your name and bot information when requesting a bot.

For archived discussions, see the discussion archive.

Requested Bots
Owner Bot Name Bot Use Current Status Voting Comments and Recommendations
12944qwerty TBD link fixes when archiving Being discussed

TBD Bot name

 Unresolved (see all...)

So, I've noticed that there are a bunch of links that get broken when archiving a talk page. Especially the CP because many people link to the CP. If a user finds this broken link, they have to guess which archive it is now found in which is extremely hard.

  • Is your bot's task necessary? Yes
  • Is your bot's task difficult for a human to do? Yes
    • If not, is there any reason that a bot would be better than a human (e.g. too repetitive, humans are too unreliable)? It gets really repetitive, and humans can make mistakes. There are also too many links that could be broken.
  • Is your bot's task more than one time or quick use? Yes.
  • Is your bot's task pronouncedly different from other bots’ tasks and would adding its task to another bot be impractical? I do not see how another bot could add this functionality as this job is quite different.
  • Would your bot have a moderate request frequency? No, it would be once per month if we only do CP archiving fixes.
  • Would your bot help the Wiki as a whole, and not just a few specific users or articles? Yes, whenever I try going through talk pages, I find archived links that are broken. Which is extremely hard to find. Especially for the CP.
  • Would your bot be almost foolproof against causing harm if something goes wrong? I doubt it. Worst thing possible would probably be linking to a wrong section lol.
  • If your bot is designed to fix a problem, is it a significant problem that happens repeatedly? Yes.
  • Would your bot follow the wiki guidelines? Yes.

I also think that people could have a signup sheet for their archives so that their links don't get broken. This could increase frequency of use.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  14:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, ok but is it necessary so much? First, how can you get the exact header? With search system on Special:Search? Also, how can you find and parse all the broken links that linked to CP?
Ahmetlii logo.gif ahmetlii  Talk  Contributions  Directory 
14:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
How often are archives done (user talk and CP)? Very rarely. There are also not many broken links, so I see no use. Also, the answer to all questions should be "yes", and you answered no to one, so again, I don't see a purpose. I could fix all broken links in under an hour if I knew where they all were, so I don't see the difficulty with a bot doing it. edit conflict with above lol

garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 14:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Wait what, glc, you put part of my text in your message
@ahmetlii What do you mean by header? The header doesn't change, and the parsing doesn't change either so it would be the same. I would also just parse through the CP, and look for each section header and search through the pages (yes, with Special:Search).
@gcl I've seen multiple broken links, and I doubt you'd be able to fix so many in under a hour. The key thing is that you don't know where they all are. To find them would take a really long time as a human. A bot could speed the process up. I also don't need to answer yes to all, (although recommended), I just need to provide a strong argument of why my bot is useful.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  14:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
bruh I'm not gcl
I could. Doesn't mean that I would, but it is possible.

garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 17:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, fixed
Exactly, you wouldn't. It's too much work for a normal human to be able to do and that's why I proposed this bot.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  17:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I believe this bot would be useful. For the bot name, I suggest ArchiveBot. Also, this is a reply to both 12944qwerty and garnetluvcookie: the answer there should've been yes, it is a moderate request frequency. Apparently 12944qwerty doesn't understand what moderate means in that context :P
VFDan.png Luvexina  Talk  Contribs  On Scratch  00:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I understood moderate as every couple days....
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  21:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, every couple days is moderate, but so is once a week. A bot that would fail that bullet would be one that requests every second.
-unsigned comment by VFDan (talk | contribs)
Oh ok....
ArchiveBot doesn't seem to express the job that this bot would do. ArchiveBot seems to say that it 'archives' pages... but that is not what it is meant to do. It's meant to fix links, once the pages are archived.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  18:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I figured that this doesn't necessarily have to be for only bots though... it can also be for moving pages if they don't leave a redirect.
I was thinking that there could be a sign-up sheet which looks at pages and subpages to see if any links should leading to those pages should be fixed or not.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  17:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
You can avoid links breaking with Special:PermanentLink. No need for a bot especially as retargetting links is not something that should be done automatically as it requires human discretion.
Naleksuh (talk | contribs) 03:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Very Late reply
Yes, but I wouldn't think that forcing every link to be a permanent link would be a great choice. At all.
And don't all the bots require human discretion? Just to make sure that the bot doesn't break anything? We have a period of time for testing the bot for this purpose as well.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  14:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
One concern I have is that a significant portion of links that break are in userspace or user-talkspace. Bots must not edit userspace (unless excepted) or other users' messages. Yet if this bot does not, that leaves a rather significant portion of broken links unfixed, defeating the purpose of the bot. Unless you have some workaround for that, I'm afraid this idea is good but ineffective.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
01:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We could potentially make an exception to userspace where if it changes the target of the link itself but not the underlying link (and this is done by a bot) that's acceptable. For example, if I link to [[User talk:Jvvg#Section Title]] we could allow it to be changed to [[User talk:Jvvg/Archive 1#Section Title|User talk:Jvvg#Section Title]] (and if there is already custom link text different from the page name, then of course just keep the link text the same).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 02:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

One thing I think we may have overlooked is that possibly not everyone moves pages to archives. Some may copy and paste everything instead. Although it's probably not often, it's definitely likely.
I agree though to both of you. We definitely should have a system that allows users to say yes or no to editing their userspace, but fixing links is something that could definitely be exempted from the rules, since it's trying to fix links.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  13:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I think this bot could look at it's talk page so you could sent it a message saying "fixlinks [url or wiki page path] and it would auto do it.
Ideapad-320 (talk | contribs) 12:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
It's been quite some time since I've made this idea and still no consensus :(
I have come up with a name: LinkFixer or chad. Not the best name but I suck at coming up with names in general. What do y'all think?
I'm just trying to bump this request so that we can hopefully come to some consensus :D
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  21:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Good name! You could change the name up above to say possible LinkFixer. You should go ahead and register that scratch account so you can have the name. But there is a issue: diffrently formatted archive title. There could be a template added called archive format. It would be a invisable template that's first paramater was the archive format(number relpaced with a #) and it could only resolve issues on talk pages with that template. How it would work (could be) that pseudocode:
For each page, find all links to talk pages that point to a missing section and are not in a database of failed ones(so it does not keep trying to get it) using what links here
Check if the target page has the archive format template. If yes, skip it. Possibly have it be in the databased of failures for some time like a month before retry. Or have som way to let the bot know that you have added the template
Check every archive for the section. Choose the first one with the highest heading level. Prefer a higher heading level but older than a lower one but newer.
If it cant find one, Perma-add it do the database of fails.
If there is no autoscanning, only finding a cirten link on request, then a lot of that logic would be omitted.
If it was to help with moves, it could use what links here and set them all to the new archive.
You could recreate this bot with a template that takes the before archive number prefix, all of the archives to search for separated by commas, and the section to search for, but that would be rather clunky, impracticly, and slow for the parser.
Another small issue is that to stop this bot from editing pages, NOBOTS must be added. But that stops wikimoniter's auto sign. We could solve this by having a way to configure NOBOTS.
I am also pretty sure that you can scan every week or few days without API spam. But you really just need to scan everything at the begining, and then do the move work when requsted. The inital "fix everything that was not fixed before" would be most of the overhead.
29590234_18x18.png Ideapad-320 | Talk | Contribs | Scratch 18:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
We'd scan the recent changes like several of the existing bots.
Also, I'm confused as to what you mean in your first issue you mentions: "differently formatted archive title". What?
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  20:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
What I mean is different "formats" of archive titles. For example, archive 1 might be at /Archive 1 or /A1 or /Archive-1 or /Archive1 or something else.
-unsigned comment by Ideapad-320 (talk | contribs) at 14:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yeah. We can set up some type of settings db/page for the bot to figure out the archives format. Though I think we could definitely sort it by most common like /Archive 1.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  02:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.