Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/shri23

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.

shri23

Operator: shrinivas

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually Assisted

Programming Language(s): Python

Function Summary: Reading data from commons.wikipedia in the companies category

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): editing not required

Edit rate requested: Not applicable

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

Function Details: the bot will be used to get the list of companies in the commons category of companies bot does not require any editing to be done

Discussion

I'm a bit confused about your bot's function. Can you clarify? What is the "commons category of companies"? What will the bot do with the list that it generates? Do you have an account on the English Wikipedia separate from your bot? Shouldn't this bot request be at commons anyway if that's the site that your reading the data from? —Mets501 (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i dont have another account registered i just want to read the list and do some processing on it . i wont be needing it for comercial purpose i first tried to do it by a script in python but then found out that thats not permitted and configuring the bot and asking permission is the right channel so posted a request over here i have made an request in a wrong section please let me know .

If your bot is only reading, have you considered downloading a database dump and scanning that? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be as clear as possible, what you're talking about is getting a listing of the contents of commons:Category:Companies? (As against fetching the actual files.) While that seems fairly benign, there seems to be no on-wiki reason given for this, and as Mets says, surely that's an matter for commons:, not for en:? I'd have to agree with HighInBC that working from a db dump would finesse those issues nicely, though admittedly that's one royal pain, given their frequency. Alai 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no issue w/ a few hundred hits to the server, it's not going to kill things. Read traffic is pretty easy to handle, its the 50 trillion writes that we start raising flags over here. If it's read only, I don't see much need for a RFBA -- Tawker 23:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. —METS501 (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.