(Redirected from S:BR)


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.

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
VFDan ThankfulBot Multiple tasks relating to Thankful Thursday. Being discussed
Ahmetlii PyUserScript Post invitations Being discussed
ContourLines PageCheck Check page content and find old and unupdated articles. Being discussed
Garnetluvcookie Polybot Various tasks Unreviewed
12944qwerty TBD link fixes when archiving Unreviewed


 Being discussed and waiting for final decision The bot automatically posts Thankful Thursdays on the CP and updates the page for it. Another possibility is that it would notify thanked users on their talk page that they were thanked (to be discussed).

VFDan.png VFDan  Talk  Contribs  On Scratch  21:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The bot would be written in either Python or JS.

VFDan.png VFDan  Talk  Contribs  On Scratch  00:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Do we really need it, though?
Banana439monkey.png banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits (3,140)) 09:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
TTs are not periodic. They happen when there are enough thanks to post, as judged by jakel181. So the basic premise is incorrect. However, let's go through the bot request questions:
  • Is your bot's task necessary? Sure.
  • Is your bot's task difficult for a human to do? No. Jake does it perfectly fine on his own. This is the main failing of your bot idea.
    • If not, is there any reason that a bot would be better than a human (e.g. too repetitive, humans are too unreliable)? It may be slightly repetitive, but at the current frequency I don't think a bot would help.
  • 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? Pronouncedly different: yes. Adding its task to another bot: WikiMonitor could probably do this, since it's currently the bot of ours set up to do things periodically
  • Would your bot have a moderate request frequency? Yes, once per day at most, I'd assume
  • Would your bot help the Wiki as a whole, and not just a few specific users or articles? TT helps as a whole, but does the bot itself help?
  • Would your bot be almost foolproof against causing harm if something goes wrong? Worst-case scenario I can imagine is spamming people's talk pages. Could potentially be dangerous that way but I don't think you're that inept.
  • If your bot is designed to fix a problem, is it a significant problem that happens repeatedly? Not designed to fix a problem.
  • Would your bot follow the wiki guidelines? I assume so.
Basically, it's not hard enough for Jake to do it himself to warrant a bot to do it for him. This isn't a bad idea, but it's not necessary.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
11:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
From the last Thankful Thursday CP post:
The next TT is March 26th. See you then!

– jakel181

It seems to me that it was supposed to be periodic. Possibly my bot could do check every Thursday and do it at a certain threshold (say four)?
VFDan.png VFDan  Talk  Contribs  On Scratch  14:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I think jakel has his own task scheduler, so he can easily do it. It's a small task, and it's not worth the trouble for a bot.
Banana439monkey.png banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits (3,140)) 12:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
If really needed, WM could do it.
Dominic305.png Dominic305  Talk  Contribs (1,772)  Scratch  Directory 
17:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Unless jakel181 thinks this is needed, I don't really think it is if all it did was post TT on the CP. You did mention the fact that it might notify users on their talk page when they were thanked. That would be a reasonable use case for a bot (in my opinion), although the question we need to answer is whether we want/need talk page notifications. :) Of course, the other question (which others have mentioned) is whether it could be added to an existing bot like WikiMonitor, which is also a possibility.
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk ▪︎ contribs 17:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

(Note: I still don't think it's needed if it's used for posting TT and archiving it.)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk ▪︎ contribs 17:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
It can be a good idea, but if we need a bot for Thankful Thursday, I think we'll make another bots
for archiving the CP or publish Scratch News. Also, this bot can be cause these:
  • Functional problems like malfunctioning.
  • A lot of server traffic - In the past, we saw crashes in Scratch Wiki and Scratch website.
  • Space problem (if they will work in Scratch Wiki server)
However, it can be good idea for decrease workload on the admins.
Ahmetlii (talk | contribs) 18:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Ahmetlii, WikiMonitor already adds FPCs to the Scratch News. However, this is not true for SDS updating, humans still do that.
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk ▪︎ contribs 18:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Bigpuppy, I don't know that and thanks for information. I have a suggestion, if WikiMonitor adding the FPCs when they are published, why don't we do this for SDS updating? Maybe it's not necessary and it's not related to bot request, but I think WikiMonitor should also add SDS studios. I will also write this suggestion to jvvg.
Ahmetlii (talk | contribs) 19:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Bots already can malfunction. There are already seven bots, so I don't think a bot running only on Thursdays will add too much load. I will ask jakel181 on his talk page if automation for this will be a good idea.
VFDan.png VFDan  Talk  Contribs  On Scratch  19:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
They can, but if well coded, they rarely do. We don't have many bots as we only allow creation if we see it as absolutely necessary.
Banana439monkey.png banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits (3,140)) 09:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Don't get me wrong — this is a great idea, but I just don't see the neccesity. Like Ken mentioned, another bot could always do this bot and I don't think Jake is currently have a bad time reposting the TT's. If you really want to be sure, just ask Jake like bigpuppy said. We could just wait until he accepts or declines.

And also, if this bot were automated to run every Thursday in the first place, I don't think that would work. I usually write the thankful messages way after one week.
Nambaseking01 (talk | contribs) 15:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Another thing is, we can't sit making a bot for every single thing that needs to be periodically updated. I'm seeing various suggestions that people should make bots for the SDS studios page and what-not, meanwhile none of the people currently updating it said they're having a problem with it.
My opinion is — do stuff after a proper reasoning. But like I said, this is also not a bad idea, but it's just pretty much useless.
Nambaseking01 (talk | contribs) 15:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
This tool can be helpful.
Ahmetlii logo.gif ahmetlii  Talk  Contributions  Directory 
07:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I'm now saying that the only way it would get implemented is if it notified everyone thanked on their talk pages (this was merely a possibility); otherwise, it wouldn't serve any purpose that isn't already taken care of by jakel181. Notifying people on their talk page is a tedious task that in my opinion should only be taken care of by a bot.
VFDan.png VFDan  Talk  Contribs  On Scratch  02:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not that tedious... Not very many people get thanked these days, so it's not too much of a task to just copy-paste or use a userscript to post all the messages.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
16:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
bump lol
Lovecodeabc Links: talk (new topic) | contribs (639) | directory 13:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi, please don't reply to discussions unless you have an opinion or argument or something to add. You can attract individual users' attention to dead discussions with the S:DIS process.

That being said, I'll allow one more week for someone to give a very good reason that this is a relevant idea. After then, I'll officially close the topic.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
09:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


The bot or script(or what you want to say) posts S:DIS messages.
Ahmetlii logo.gif ahmetlii  Talk  Contributions  Directory 
08:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, it should be called something else (Discussion Invitation Bot maybe, but I think a shorter name would be better). However, I do support a bot for S:DIS messages.
VFDan.png VFDan  Talk  Contribs  On Scratch  02:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't see why this bot is needed just for one specific job, which can be done by humans easily. The only pro I see with this bot is that it could make sure that the limits posted are followed.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  22:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
S:DIS has a much larger human component in it than you think - it's not simply periodic notifications of topics. Part of the inviter's role is to decide who should be notified about a particular topic, and what topics to invite people to discuss. It's not a simple mailing list. Besides that, topics that are Yes Done should not be considered, and that task is already impossible for a bot - I just used that template in such a way that a bot would think this topic is done. Do you have a narrower area of focus for it?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
17:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
This may be more harder thing than I suggested, but also I was thinking about a signer bot who add unsigned templates to unsigned posts. I know it's possible (because someone did it on Turkish Wikipedia) however the developer refused to share the code. And, I will not enough time to write a bot and fix the mistakes.
Ahmetlii logo.gif ahmetlii  Talk  Contributions  Directory 
17:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
And I see that I must find another focus, since other idea has problems.
-unsigned comment by Ahmetlii (talk | contribs)
Your other idea could be added to WM as it already looks for unsigned edits....
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  14:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Besides that, topics that are Yes Done should not be considered, and that task is already impossible for a bot - I just used that template in such a way that a bot would think this topic is done." Couldn't the bot just check for a Yes Done right after an ==?
VFDan.png VFDan  Talk  Contribs  On Scratch  23:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

{{done}} doesn't always come at the beginning. Sometimes it goes at the end, and rarely (but possible) in the middle. I don't think it would be a good idea to force every {{done}} at the beginning.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  14:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes Done may also be used in places like these.... I don't think that these discussions should be unconsidered...
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  14:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
After thinking a bit, I thought you could replace the use of {{done}} with bigpuppy's (un)/resolved idea. done could then be used for more casual conversations, and resolved would be used otherwise.
-unsigned comment by 12944qwerty (talk | contribs)


PageCheck would process a page and try to find notable usage of first or second person, informal language (e.g. 'yeah') or anything not meeting the wiki standards and write a note at the top. It would also be able to add references where needed. As well as that, it would try and find old pages and form a list on a page in it's userspace. All 3 tasks being attempted by humans are either time consuming or can result in common human error. It would perform these tasks on either a weekly or monthly basis and run through a selection of articles updated a lot recently and add those seemingly forgotten articles to it's list. As far as I know of I believe that none of the bots currently focus this much on the content of an article. It would either be written in Python or Java.
ContourLines Logo.png ContourLines Talk | Contributions | Directory 16:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User:TemplatesFTW already checks first and second person, also No Further reviews needed for all requests.
Ahmetlii logo.gif ahmetlii  Talk  Contributions  Directory 
16:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I had realised that. I believe that it could actually focus on page activity as a routine but have non-routine article related tasks.
ContourLines Logo.png ContourLines Talk | Contributions | Directory 16:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
We're not accepting anything typographical anymore, which is most of the reason that bots don't focus on the content.
What other "wiki standards" do you intend to look at, specifically? And how on earth do you plan to add the right references?
Finally, "old" pages have a MediaWiki special page list: Special:AncientPages
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
17:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


Note Note: I know some of these are taken by other bots already. I am proposing to strengthen these processes.

PolyBot would do various tasks (e.g. clearing sandbox, fixing style, compressing files, and interwiki stuff). It would be written in Python or JS, Python being likelier.

garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs)

Also I have learned a good bit of Python since last time.

garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 20:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
They are already done by other bots. Why don't you try to improve them rather than just making another request?
Ahmetlii logo.gif ahmetlii  Talk  Contributions  Directory 
20:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Mine would be way more different than other bots, so that's why I'm suggesting a separate bot.

garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 21:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
All the tasks you've listed is done by other bots. Can you explain how they will be different? Or how will you strengthen them?
As Ahmetlii said, you could just edit the bots. The two bots that use python are TemplatesFTW and InterwikiBot (which also uses java).
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  22:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The messages would look way different than TemplatesFTW and WM, and the code would be a biit different; we can't just revamp a whole bot.

garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 14:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Just because the messages are different and the codes are different wouldn't mean that the bot is different. All the tasks are still the same.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  14:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So? Ken definitely wouldn't agree to a revamping of his bot. Also, IWB strictly does interwiki tasks, and I'm not prepared to do that (and request 10k accounts)

garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 17:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@garnetluvcookie: If so, why TemplatesFTW's codes are under open source named as "deathly-hallows"?
Ahmetlii logo.gif ahmetlii  Talk  Contributions  Directory 
17:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Ken will allow to revamping his bot as long as he knows what you're trying to do. I don't know what made you think otherwise.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  17:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
He wouldn't agree to what I'm thinking of. It has a different design, layout, messages, etc.

garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs)
You can always talk to him. I'd suggest asking on the weekends though as he is busy. You never know until you ask.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  22:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
You're not getting my point. I'm suggesting a new bot, while you are suggesting I somehow persuade Ken to change the whole "aesthetic" of his bot.

garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 22:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
You're suggesting a new bot. I understand that. However, this new bot doesn't have any task that can't be already added or modified to an existing bot. You also pointed out that just the messages and codes would be different. If only those two were different, there is absolutely no point for a new bot.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  01:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I will think of new tasks, I can't just think them up in 10 seconds, let alone when I wake up.

garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 12:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You're saying that you made a bot but didn't think of tasks in doing so? Isn't the whole purpose of a bot to have new tasks?
Is your bot's task pronouncedly different from other bots’ tasks and would adding its task to another bot be impractical? You already noted that it is possible to add to another bot, but wouldn't be likely because the owner of the bot wouldn't "like" your edits.
I never said you couldn't think of tasks right away. But I would suggest knowing your tasks before you propose a bot idea.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  13:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Got it. I already have a good few ideas but I'm deciding on a few.

garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 13:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok! Take your time and come back when you've decided on ideas.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  14:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

TBD Bot name

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