Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BezkingBot-Link

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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.

[edit] BezkingBot-Link

tasks • contribs • count • sul • logs • page moves • block user • block log • flag log • flag bot

Operator: Bezking

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually Assisted. Bot WILL NOT edit by it self.

Programming Language(s):perl (pywikipediabot)

Function Summary:Checks for and reports dead external links

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):Once per week looks good.

Edit rate requested: ??<--Dont know edits per TIME

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

Function Details:Uses a pywikipediabot extention to check pages for dead external links. The bot reports dead links on the articles talkpage.

[edit] Discussion

Would it be possible to have it remember dead links, and if they stay dead for a period of time, then note them on the talk? Sites may be temporarily unavailable when the bot runs, but not actually dead links. 404 errors are different though; those are accessible, but known to be dead. -- Sir Escher talk 23:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I can set it to check only 404s.--Bezking Talk • Contribs 12:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Where will you get the list of pages to check for deadlinks? — xaosflux Talk 19:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I can specify a certain number of pages, starting with a specified page name, or just go down the list at special:allpages. --Bezking Talk • Contribs 20:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


Just a note: it will remember 404s and leave a talkpage note after 7 days. --Bezking Talk • Contribs 22:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disapprove of a bot to GET spam around just to look for dead links. If this where attached to a general, manually assisted, MOS/spelling/formatting script that would be fine, but dead link removal alone is not worth it. Also dead links can encourage page creation too. Voice-of-All 23:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, missed the word "external", which is much better. OK, this seems fine then. Voice-of-All 16:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
VOA: Could you please explain why you think tis? I don't get it ... ): "Also dead links can encourage page creation too" --Bezking Talk • Contribs 23:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Dead INTERNAL links can be good, but dead EXTERNAL links (which this bot is supposed to target) are not beneficial in any way I can see.
This seems very similar to #ShakingBot, above, so I'm suggesting the same feature enhancement - tagging the dead external link in the article. There are probably a hundred times more people who read an article than read its talk page - if the bad link is tagged in the article, that's potentially 100 times more people who might fix it. John Broughton | Talk 17:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't look like this is possible, so maybe I can get a WikiProject of some sort to watch the category (see below) and take the appropriate action. --Bezking Talk • Contribs 00:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Bot trial run approved for the duration of one week. Voice-of-All 16:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


OK, lookin' good! --Bezking Talk • Contribs 23:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have set up [[Category:Dead_Links_Found_by_BezkingBot-Link]] . Whenever the bot tags a link, it will add the page to this category.--Bezking Talk • Contribs 01:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sample Message

A sample message can be found here: [1] Please note that this was achieved by setting the system time forward one week on the server the bot runs on.

It really would be good if the message also told the reader where to find out what to do - specifically, provided a link to Wikipedia:Dead external links. John Broughton | Talk 21:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a good idea.
How about this addition to the bottom of the message:
    ===What to do===
    Please read Wikipedia:Dead external links and take appropriate action. Thanks for helping Wikipeda!


That's fine. Thanks. John Broughton | Talk 03:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Request Expired. per [2]. —Mets501 (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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.