Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Good Article Patrol Bot

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

Request Expired.

Good Article Patrol Bot

Operator: Robert Skyhawk (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: Run using AWB, whose parameters I can make available on request.

Function overview: Updates Good Articles in respect to {{Good article}} template.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Bot request, Discussion regarding symbol usage

Edit period(s): Weekly, unless a large number of pages need tagging at a given time.

Estimated number of pages affected: All of the Good Articles; there are currently 40,596

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function details: The decision was recently made to add {{Good article}}, which displays at the top of a page, to all of the good articles. While users have already added the template to most of the GAs with AWB in semi-automated mode, there is a desire in the GA Project for a bot that would periodically check the Good articles; adding the template to those that don't have it, and removing the template from pages that are no longer Good articles. The bot would use Category:Wikipedia good articles as a list of actual GAs, since the category is populated by {{GA}}, which is put on talk pages of GAs and determines whether or not the article is actually a Good article. To check articles that use the template, Category:Good articles is used, since it is populated by {{Good article}}.

Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 03:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Thanks for volunteering to do this! I think you want Category:Wikipedia good articles, not Category:Wikipedia Good Articles. Would it be possible to also check the list at WP:Good articles? I am not sure which should be considered more authoritative in determining whether an article is a GA, but I suppose the bot could report any discrepancies for a sentient editor to sort out. Ucucha 05:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for correcting me on the category. As for the list at WP:GA, it would be harder to use because there are inevitably going to be some links on that page that aren't part of the actual list, and AWB would still treat them as GAs. Category:Wikipedia good articles should be a reliable list, because every article that passes GA is supposed to transclude {{GA}} on its talk page. It's then very simple for the bot to convert those to mainspace pages, and scan for the template. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 18:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, they can also have {{ArticleHistory}} (indeed, that is preferable), but that does not matter much because it still generates the same category. All links on WP:GA that are not to GAs ought to be in transcluded templates; can't AWB ignore such links? Ucucha 18:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would be fairly accurate, and worth doing it shows right now that

....

...

HSW-W Championship

Are not consistently in all three groups.

Rich Farmbrough, 18:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC). (Note the first group were fixed while I was writing this leading to some head-scratching about which group was which.[reply]

Between the two of us, we fixed all those. The first group had the GA template on the talk page and the symbol on the article page, but was not listed on WP:GA; the second group was listed on WP:GA and had a GA template on the talk page, but did not have the GA symbol. Ucucha 19:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Right now, getting all of the links on WP:GA, then removing those that are not mainspace, produces a list of 9277 pages, which is the exact number of Talk namespace pages in Category:Wikipedia good articles. This means that both methods are identically accurate. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 19:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because Rich and I just fixed all discrepancies. But new problems may arise in the future. Ucucha 19:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. So I suppose this comes down to what actually makes an article a GA: transcluding {{GA}}, or being listed on WP:GA. Which would be the best source? Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 20:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to do it is to look at what the reviewer wanted. For example, I found an article which had failed, but where the reviewer had put up the {{GA}} template instead of the GA-fail template. However, the bot of course can't do that. Perhaps the best solution would be to have the bot add {{Good article}} if the article both is on WP:GA and has {{GA}}, and have it post to WT:GA if it detects discrepancies (articles which are on WP:GA but don't have {{GA}} and vice versa). Ucucha 20:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This could certainly be done; I would first get a list of pages on WP:GA, filter non-GAs, and convert them to their to talk pages. Then I would get a dump of these pages and scan them for {{GA}}. Finally, I would convert those that are "{{GA}} positive" back to mainspace and run a check for {{Good article}}. This would lengthen the process considerably, but I'm fine doing it if that's what is desired. I'm not an expert with AWB, so anyone knows a more efficient way of doing what I've described, please let me know. As for anomalies, I can't make AWB post a report to a talk page, but I'm pretty sure that I'll be able to tell which pages the aforementioned system refutes, and go from there. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 23:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have it easy and can say whatever I like, and you'll actually have to code the bot, so please do say it when you think what I want is impossible or inconvenient. Ucucha 06:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you say that, but I would be fine going through such a process; now that I think about it, a similarly complex process would have to be used to search for non-GAs that transclude the template. What it really comes down to is whether we think such accuracy is necessary with a little symbol. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 19:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think these lists are going to be short, so a little cut-and-pasting is going to do what is needed. However if they were long, a little plugin would be what is needed - alternatively you could create a hidden category (or categories) called "Anomalous good article status" and add it to the anomalous pages. A template on WP:GA or WP talk: GA could display the current state much as the progress boxes do with the clean-up categories. Rich Farmbrough, 19:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Am I ready for an approval? Since there are only about 11 pages that need modification (according to my calculations), I would request either a small trial (~5-10 articles) or direct approval without a trial. Thanks, Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 04:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. do what you think is needed. MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Any news? MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to expire this in a few days if I don't hear back. MBisanz ^talk 19:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. Marking this as expired, I see one trial edits, but no comments from the operator, who should have got back from vacation >2 weeks ago. This request may be reopened at any time. For when/if it is, I should like to point out that AWB's list building feature would allow you to easily make a list of pages both in the category Wikipedia good articles, and linked to from WP:GA, without having to scan each page manually. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.