I | II | III | HB | AAB | TFA | Hale |
Legobot | Legobot II | Legobot III | Hockeybot | ArticleAlertbot | TFA Protector | HaleBot |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Apologies if this has already been answered. If I add a topic area from {{rfc}} Legobot will add that RfC to the respective topic page. If I remove a topic area Legobot apparently won't remove it from that topic page. Could Legobot do this in the future? Schierbecker ( talk) 23:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Legoktm, what happened
here and
here? These three rfcids do not occur anywhere in
Template:Rfc, nor indeed anywhere other than the two pages in those diffs. I've seen something similar before, at least five years ago, due to somebody putting an {{
RfC}}
tag inside commented text. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
18:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
MariaDB s51043__legobot> select * from rfc where rfc_id="8C10D2D";
+---------+--------------+---------------+-------------+---------------+
| rfc_id | rfc_page | rfc_contacted | rfc_expired | rfc_timestamp |
+---------+--------------+---------------+-------------+---------------+
| 8C10D2D | Template:Rfc | 0 | 0 | 0 |
+---------+--------------+---------------+-------------+---------------+
1 row in set (0.010 sec)
@ Legoktm: Is it feasible to have Legobot notify the creator of an RFC – eg with a message on that user's talk page, or {{ ping}} on the RfC talk page – when Legobot removes an expired RFC template?
Eg Legobot removed the template here, legitimately because the RfC was expired, but I did not realise this for several weeks because:
I'd rather not have to show all bot edits on my watchlist, because there are many of them, and generally I don't care about them. An explicit notification would be helpful. Mitch Ames ( talk) 12:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
An RfC listed in [1] was added in such a way that the formatting broke. The RfC header begins with a numbered list, which does not format properly in this template. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 11:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag (exclusive) to the first valid timestamp (inclusive). The copying is verbatim, it does not alter anything. If there is any problem, it lies with {{
rfcquote}}
. See
WP:RFCNEUTRAL: the statement should not begin with a list. There's an easy way of fixing it. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 18:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Not all RFCs work very well with the vagarities of formatting that are needed to avoid breaking the list pages. I suggest you make it so that something like {{
rfc|topic|summary=Some text goes here.}}
has the bot use the "Some text goes here." as the summary in the list rather than trying to copy up to the first timestamp, so we don't have to have editors who care more about the list than the RFC itself reformatting things in ways that make the RFC formatting worse.
Anomie
⚔
23:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
and the first timestamp, lightly munges it, and dumps it into {{
rfcquote|text=}}
. One thing it doesn't do is escape pipes, so something like this {{rfc|topic|rfcid=XYZ}}
<div style="display:none">|text=
This text is hidden on the RFC page, but is shown on the listing. 00:00 11 July 2024 (UTC)
</div>
{{rfcquote|text=
<div style="display:none">|text=
This text is hidden on the RFC page, but is shown on the listing. 00:00 11 July 2024 (UTC)}}
|text=
parameter overrides the first, effectively removing the div so the text displays properly on the listing page.
Anomie
⚔
01:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)