Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval

Wikipedia process page for approving bots From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To run a bot on the English Wikipedia, you must first get it approved. Follow the instructions below to add a request. If you are not familiar with programming, consider asking someone else to run a bot for you.

More information Instructions for bot operators, I ...
 Instructions for bot operators
I Before applying for approval
  • Read the bot policy, and check the list of frequently denied bot requests.
  • If your task could be controversial (e.g. most bots making non-maintenance edits to articles and most bots posting messages on user talk pages), seek consensus for the task. Common places to start include WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of the relevant policies, guidelines, templates, and/or WikiProjects. Link to this discussion in your request for approval.
  • You will need to create an account for your bot if you haven't already done so. Click here when logged in to create the account, linking it to yours. (If you do not create the bot account while logged in, it is likely to be blocked as a possible sockpuppet or unauthorised bot until you verify ownership)
  • Create a userpage for your bot, linking to your userpage (this is commonly done using the {{bot}} template) and describing its functions. You may also include an 'emergency shutoff button'.
II Filing the application
  • Enter your bot's user name in the box below and click the button. If this is a request for an additional task, put a task number as well (e.g. BotName 2).
  • Complete the questions on the resulting page and save it.

  • Your request must now be added to the correct section of the main approvals page: Click here and add {{BRFA}} to the top of the list, directly below the comment line.
    • For a first request: use {{BRFA|bot name||Open}}
    • For an additional task request: use {{BRFA|bot name|task number|Open}}
III During the approvals process
  • During the process, an approvals group member may approve a trial for your bot (typically after allowing time for community input), and AnomieBOT will move the request to this section.
  • Run the bot for the specified number of edits/time period, then add {{Bot trial complete}} to the request page. It helps if you also link to the bot's contributions, and comment on any errors that may have occurred.
  • AnomieBOT will move the request to the 'trial complete' section by moving the {{BRFA}} template that applies to your bot
  • If you feel that your request is being overlooked (no BAG attention for ~1 week) you can add {{BAG assistance needed}} to the page. However, please do not use it after every comment!
  • At any time during the approvals process, you may withdraw your request by adding {{BotWithdrawn}} to your bot's approval page.
IV After the approvals process
  • After the trial edits have been reviewed and enough time has passed for any more discussion, a BAG member will approve or deny the request appropriately.
    • For approved requests: The request will be listed here. If necessary, a bureaucrat will flag the bot within a couple of days and you can then run the task fully (it's best to wait for the flag, to avoid cluttering recent changes). If the bot already has a flag, or is to run without one, you may start the task when ready.
    • For denied/expired/withdrawn requests: The request will be listed at the bottom of the main BRFA page in the relevant section.
Close
More information Bot Name, Status ...
Bot NameStatusCreatedLast editorDate/TimeLast BAG editorDate/Time
PrimeBOT 48 (T|C|B|F) Open 2026-03-08, 21:27:53 Primefac2026-03-14, 21:39:12 Never edited by BAGn/a
SdkbBot 5 (T|C|B|F) On hold 2026-02-07, 21:26:55 Primefac2026-03-08, 20:49:01 Primefac2026-03-08, 20:49:01
MilHistBot 10 (T|C|B|F) In trial 2026-02-10, 01:29:40 Hawkeye72026-03-02, 23:15:39 SD00012026-02-26, 03:57:41
Close

New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!

Current requests for approval

PrimeBOT 48

Operator: Primefac (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 21:27, Sunday, March 8, 2026 (UTC)

Function overview: Replace outdated external citation link with an updated template call

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: WP:AWB

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy § Help needed with broken reference in asteroid articles

Edit period(s): OTR

Estimated number of pages affected: ~2000

Namespace(s): Article

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: The Asteroid Lightcurve Database (LCDB) has undergone a change meaning that the old search functionality leading to a specific asteroid has been changed and no longer valid. In order to better serve the readers {{cite LCDB}} was created. This bot run will replace all {{cite web}} calls in the article space with this new citation template. Note that there are two possible parameters which the bot will look for:

  1. Body is known by a number, which will then populate the |number= field as in Special:Diff/1342332799/1342417991
  2. Body is known by a name, which will then populate the |name= field as in Special:Diff/1342418676

This run (at the moment) is only planning to deal with pages calling {{cite web}} (see the linked discussion for other edge cases which are currently out of scope)

Discussion

Before running the bot, make sure it understands minor planet designations. How does it handle the most common cases ...

  • ... where the current citation includes both a name and a number, like at 4827 Dares, where "number=4827" or "name=Dares" would both be acceptable?
  • ... where the name consists of multiple words, like at 19367 Pink Floyd?
  • ... of an unnamed object like (153591) 2001 SN263, where "number=153591" or "name=2001 SN263"?
  • ... of an unnumbered object like at 2017 VL2, where "name=2017 VL2"? Does it understand that "2017" is not a number parameter?
  • ... like 2016 DV1, where the current citation writes "2016+DV1", which requires "name=2016 DV1" (keeping the + sign results in an error message)?

Does it understand that 2031 BAM ("number=2031", name="BAM") is different from 2004 FH, where "name=2004 FH" and which the current citation handles incorrectly ("number=2004" is wrong)? Renerpho (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The old URL took two "parameters" after the AstInfo=, the number and the name (respectively) separated by a | (or in URL terms, %7C). If there is a non-zero number "param" then that will go into |number=, otherwise I'll take anything past the %7C as the |name= (turning, of course, any + into a space). Assuming the original URL pointed to the right place (which I am doing) then there is no guesswork involved. Primefac (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
I see. Unfortunately there are a number of bugs in the old citation logic. 2004 FH is handled incorrectly (should be "name=2004 FH", not "number=2004"), as is 6344 P-L (should be "name=6344 P-L", not "number=6344"). Renerpho (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Ah, the urls seem to be correct there, the citations just have a wrong title! I think you may be good... Apologies for the fuzz, I got overly concerned there :) Renerpho (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Just to be sure: Does your code handle names that contain a | sign, like (469705) |=Kagara? I'm not sure if the bot will encounter such a case. Renerpho (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm sorry to show you one edge case after another; I just want to make sure things don't break. Here's one that will come up relatively often: In 1944 Günter, taking the name "Günter" or "G%C3%BCnter" from the citation's url http://www.minorplanet.info/PHP/generateOneAsteroidInfo.php?AstInfo=1944%7CG%C3%BCnter would result in an error message, because the new website does not handle diacritics (whereas the old website did). It has to be "name=Gunter". A relatively straight-forward way to work around this is to use the list at https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/lists/MPNames.html -- search for the name in the 2nd column and replace it by the sanitized version in the 1st column. Renerpho (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
The url in the article is http://www.minorplanet.info/PHP/generateOneAsteroidInfo.php?AstInfo=1944%7CGünter which would put it as |number=1944; the name doesn't matter. Same for Kagara. Primefac (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

SdkbBot 5

Operator: Sdkb (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 21:26, Saturday, February 7, 2026 (UTC)

Function overview: Removes erroneously italicized commas at the end of italicized terms.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: The bot will be operated by running through lists of pages from the RegEx search query insource:/''[A-Z a-z]+,'' / with a find and replace for ''([A-Z a-z]+),'' →''$1'', . It will use the edit summary Fix erroneously italicized comma and general fixes (task 5).

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): None. Although not explicitly specified in the Manual of Style, it is standard English to italicize only the term itself, not punctuation following it.

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 82,000 per this search

Namespace(s): Mainspace (potentially expanding to other namespaces)

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Because italics markup looks similar to quotation marks and many editors are used to American-style quotation, many editors erroneously put commas following italicized terms within the italicized term, causing the comma to be erroneously italicized. This bot will fix many of these instances, using the AWB settings described above. I did 50 test edits for a version excluding italicized terms with spaces, manually reviewing each one, and the only instances that gave me any pause were ones within quotations, e.g. here (after "for" in the paragraph beginning "King asked a bookmobile driver"). These could be excluded if an issue, but, per the MOS, Insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected (for example, correct basicly to basically), so I think it's fine to include them. I reviewed another 60 edits (including terms with spaces) via search and found no issues.

Discussion

Should something similar be done with bold? (10,000 per this search) -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Likely. It might also be worth requesting this be added to the genfixes for AWB so that when this run is over any new instances will be more likely to be picked up. Primefac (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it'd definitely be nice to do the same thing with erroneously bolded commas. I intentionally kept the query constrained to start off (ignoring any italicized terms with unusual characters, for instance), but it could be expanded after the initial run is over.
And yes, I agree it'd be nice to add this to the GENFIX set. Cheers, Sdkb talk 22:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Are you not wanting to do bold? Primefac (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
I looked through the first 100 search results for the bold query. I found one niche edge case: On this page, bolding is used to delineate which parts of two passages match. Because manual line breaks are used, some bolded strings end with a comma. You could argue that this is a downstream effect of the article using poor syntax with manual line breaks, or that a passage like that should have been surrounded with {{as written}}. But because bolding is sometimes used for niche purposes like this, I think it's the slightest bit riskier to try to fix it than italics.
I'll defer to whatever the consensus is here about whether, given this, it's worthwhile to include it or not. Sdkb talk 17:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

This feels like something so minor that it would be best either ignored or done as part of AWB GENFIXES. I oppose this being done as the sole edit to a page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It's certainly not the most earth-shattering change to a page, but it is an improvement, and it's clearly in compliance with WP:COSMETICBOT because it changes the output HTML of the page. It is something that I occasionally notice as a reader. Also, because it's an AWB bot, it can be run alongside GENFIXes, so often the comma fix will not be the only change the bot makes. Sdkb talk 17:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether the change is an improvement or neutral, and I have no objection to the change being made alongside changes that are unambiguously improvements, but minor changes like this should never be the sole change made by a bot. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
On hold. There is opposition to the task, and with only the implication of consensus to run the task based on existing guidelines I would prefer to see a stronger consensus to specifically target this as a bot run. I know AWB releases updates less frequently than most countries change leadership, but that would be another route to go down to start whittling away at the list. Primefac (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
@Primefac, where would be an appropriate venue to get additional input on whether there is consensus to run this as a bot task? Thryduulf's view seems to be that WP:COSMETICBOT should be made stricter, and while I know that's a view some editors hold, presumably it's a minority given that editors have not found consensus to change the language of the bot policy. Sdkb talk 20:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Either at the MOS talk or a Village Pump. I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a more strict ruling on COSMETICBOT given that it already says Minor edits are not usually considered cosmetic but still need consensus to be done by bots. Since this is a "barely visible" type of minor edit, I'd like to get at least some measure of support for making it; it's not like you're going to need an RFC, just enough to indicate that Thryduulf is in the minority when it comes to being concerned. Primefac (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Bots in a trial period

MilHistBot 10

Operator: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 01:29, Tuesday, February 10, 2026 (UTC)

Function overview: Maintain the participants list of a MilHist task force (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force).

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): C#

Source code available: https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/toolforge-repos/milhistbot-membership

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force

Edit period(s): monthly

Estimated number of pages affected: 57

Namespace(s): Wikipedia

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Go through the membership of a MilHist task force (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force) and comment out members inactive for more than 365 days. Uncomment members who were inactive but have now resumed activity.

Discussion

Which are the 20 pages that this affects? – SD0001 (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
The pages in Category:WikiProject Military history task forces. Actually, there are 57 pages. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
Approved for trial (2 weeks). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – SD0001 (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
  1. African military history task force
  2. American Revolutionary War task force
  3. Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
  4. Balkan military history task force
  5. Baltic states military history task force
  6. British military history task force
  7. Canadian military history task force
  8. Chinese military history task force
  9. Cold War task force
  10. Dutch military history task force
  11. Early Modern warfare task force
  12. Early Muslim military history task force
  13. Fortifications task force
  14. French military history task force
  15. German military history task force
  16. Intelligence task force
  17. Italian military history task force
  18. Japanese military history task force
  19. Maritime warfare task force
  20. Medieval warfare task force
  21. Middle Eastern military history task force
  22. Military aviation task force
  23. Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force
  24. Military land vehicles task force
  25. Military logistics and medicine task force
  26. Military memorials and cemeteries task force
  27. Military science, technology, and theory task force
  28. Napoleonic era task force
  29. National militaries task force
  30. Nordic military history task force
  31. Post-Cold War task force
  32. Polish military history task force
  33. Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
  34. South American military history task force
  35. South Asian military history task force
  36. Southeast Asian military history task force
  37. Spanish military history task force
  38. United States military history task force
  39. Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force
  40. Weaponry task force
  41. World War I task force
  42. World War II task force
Trial complete.
Nota bene* The regular monthly run will not do nearly this much work. There was a backlog that the bot run was written to address. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Bots that have completed the trial period

Bots that have been approved for operations after a successful BRFA will be listed here for informational purposes. No other approval action is required for these bots. Recently approved requests can be found here (edit), while old requests can be found in the archives.

Approved requests

Denied requests

Bots that have been denied for operations will be listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. No other action is required for these bots. Older requests can be found in the Archive.

Expired/withdrawn requests

These requests have either expired, as information required by the operator was not provided, or been withdrawn. These tasks are not authorized to run, but such lack of authorization does not necessarily follow from a finding as to merit. A bot that, having been approved for testing, was not tested by an editor, or one for which the results of testing were not posted, for example, would appear here. Bot requests should not be placed here if there is an active discussion ongoing above. Operators whose requests have expired may reactivate their requests at any time. The following list shows recent requests (if any) that have expired, listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. Older requests can be found in the respective archives: Expired, Withdrawn.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI