Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EarwigBot 10
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: The Earwig (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, unsupervised
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: Available through my Toolserver repo: tools:~earwig/earwigbot; see dyktalkbot_run.py
Function overview: The bot combines {{DYK talk}} into {{ArticleHistory}} on talk pages where {{ArticleHistory}} is already being used.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests#Incorporation of DYK talk functionality into ArticleHistory
Edit period(s): One-time run
Estimated number of pages affected: 274
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function details: The bot creates a list of all talk pages that transclude both {{DYK talk}} (or a redirect) and {{ArticleHistory}} (or a redirect). For each page, the bot will try to combine the {{DYK talk}} template into the {{ArticleHistory}} template, then remove the {{DYK talk}} template. Specifically:
- If the {{DYK talk}} template contains either
{{DYK talk|3 June|2008|... that in January 2006, [[United Kingdom|British]] [[Paralympic Games|Paralympic]] [[sprint (race)|sprinter]] '''[[John McFall]]''''s racing [[prosthesis]] was stolen, but anonymously returned a week later?|num=219}}; or{{DYK talk|3 June|2008|entry=... that in January 2006, [[United Kingdom|British]] [[Paralympic Games|Paralympic]] [[sprint (race)|sprinter]] '''[[John McFall]]''''s racing [[prosthesis]] was stolen, but anonymously returned a week later?|num=219}},
- then the bot will add the following parameters to {{ArticleHistory}}:
|dykdate = 3 June 2008|dyklink = 219|dykentry = ... that in January 2006, [[United Kingdom|British]] [[Paralympic Games|Paralympic]] [[sprint (race)|sprinter]] '''[[John McFall]]''''s racing [[prosthesis]] was stolen, but anonymously returned a week later?.
Discussion
[edit]- Comment: The way the ArticleHistory template is currently set up, the dyklink parameter is not actually used. It extracts the correct archive page from the date parameter. Therefore it might be better if this parameter is not added. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, now that I'm looking at the template. Fixed. — The Earwig (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- There is also the dykdate2 parameter. I'm not actually sure if this is used anywhere? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- There is no equivalent parameter in {{DYK talk}}, so I can't do anything about it. — The Earwig (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, just checking that you were aware of its existence. Thanks for taking this task on. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- There is no equivalent parameter in {{DYK talk}}, so I can't do anything about it. — The Earwig (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- There is also the dykdate2 parameter. I'm not actually sure if this is used anywhere? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, now that I'm looking at the template. Fixed. — The Earwig (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I find the topic interesting. I would like to ask for other changes to be done at the same time. More specifically, move {{skip to talk}} and {{talk header}} on the top if they exist. Also rename WPBS to WikiProjectBannerShell. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- These are both useful changes, but I'm not sure if the operator wants to alter the bot (and potentially introduce bugs) to deal with this problem on only 274 pages. Either way, Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. BTW: Having an emergency shutoff that's checked only at program start seems a little relaxed. Josh Parris 10:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Doing the trial right now. An emergency shutoff that's only checked at the start of the run (tasks 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 all do this) is a little relaxed, yes. I was planning on changing this sooner-or-later, but I'm not terribly concerned at the moment. Runs for those tasks are usually pretty short, after all, usually about five minutes (if even!), excluding the first time I run the bot and the backlog is much larger. Why check a shutoff more than once in a five minute period for an uncontroversial task? It seems a little wasteful, but if you really think I should check it more often, I'd be happy to comply. (By the way: while I've run bots on Wikipedia for about ten months now, their shutoff has never been used a single time.) — The Earwig (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Trial complete. [1] Overall, the task appeared to go according to plan. There was a bug that affected two pages, caused by my own stupidity, but I noticed it quickly and fixed it. Everything else seems fine. — The Earwig (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Doing the trial right now. An emergency shutoff that's only checked at the start of the run (tasks 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 all do this) is a little relaxed, yes. I was planning on changing this sooner-or-later, but I'm not terribly concerned at the moment. Runs for those tasks are usually pretty short, after all, usually about five minutes (if even!), excluding the first time I run the bot and the backlog is much larger. Why check a shutoff more than once in a five minute period for an uncontroversial task? It seems a little wasteful, but if you really think I should check it more often, I'd be happy to comply. (By the way: while I've run bots on Wikipedia for about ten months now, their shutoff has never been used a single time.) — The Earwig (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Approved. Nice! Tim1357 (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.