Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MBisanzBot 6

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 Denied.

Operator: MBisanz ^talk

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Auto

Programming Language(s): AWB

Function Summary: NOINDEXing RFCU and SSP

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): finish backlog, once every 3 months thereafter

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

Function Details: Bot will take grep of google RFCUs SSPs listing of all RFCUs and SSPs that are publicly visible. It will add the {{NOINDEX}} tag to any RFCU or SSP on google that does not currently have that tag on the page.

Discussion

Looking at those Google results, many of them have the {{NOINDEX}} template transcluded via another template but the version Google has is from August, probably before it was added. I just added {{NOINDEX}} to the {{SSPa}} template. However, if we really want to no-index all of these pages automatically, MediaWiki:robots.txt would be a better option, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/ already seems to be on it. Mr.Z-man 17:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If RFCU is already on it (and I presume has been on it), why are all of them showing up in google. Also, some of the older SSPs and RFCUs do not use the template boxes, so it will not pass through to them. MBisanz ^talk 17:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is one of google's caching errors. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 01:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I know google has a 30 day revisit cycle, so I am willing to wait on that, but I do think some of these pages, because of their names or age won't have the syntax required for google to no-index them. MBisanz ^talk 19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robots.txt is definitely the answer here as the pages all use a common prefix. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. - If done, this should be done with robots.txt. Mr.Z-man 19:40, 5 January 2009 (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.