Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Snotbot 9

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.

Snotbot 9

Operator: Snottywong (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 17:27, Thursday November 3, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Pywikipedia + custom code, source code available on request (once it's written)

Function overview: Creates an updated table of articles tagged for rescue.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 43#Article Rescue Squadron could use an AFD close date on their list of articles that need help, Wikipedia talk:ARS#dating the articles listed on the Rescue page

Edit period(s): TBD, update a few times per day, probably one edit every 3-6 hours.

Estimated number of pages affected: 1

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No

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

Function details: Bot will periodically look at articles in CAT:RESCUE and put them into a sortable table along with other data about them, including:

An estimate of the day the AfD will close for this article
The current status of the AfD
The user who tagged the article for rescue
Date when the article was tagged for rescue

Once the AfD has been closed, the article will remain in the table along with the result of the AfD for a limited amount of time. This table will likely live on its own subpage of WP:ARS.

Discussion

Example edit of what it will probably end up looking like. —SW— ^comment 19:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty straightforward and a good task at first look. You may however want to consider something more along the lines of this tool, rather than having a bot which edits every 3-6 hours. It's generally more user friendly, too. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but decided against it for several reasons: the wikiproject may want to transclude this table; the way I planned on coding it makes it somewhat more complicated to do on TS; the task requires analyzing page text, which TS doesn't have database access to; and I feel that generally when people pull up a TS page, they expect the data they see to be up-to-date. Since it could potentially take up to 2-3 minutes to grab all the data required, it's not feasible to provide up-to-the-minute data. —SW— ^speak 14:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, other than the transclusion, all of those problems could be got around. But it doesn't really matter if it's a bot I guess. How is the code coming along? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think this is a good idea. One thing I noticed though: SW has a real talent for color coding tables (see the AfD votes tracker). I was wondering if it might be feisable for the table to be color coded as well. If it is going to be as big as the example, the color coding will simplify things (or at least it does at the AfC table). Sven Manguard Wha? 17:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Show us what you've got --Chris 02:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's running. I started a new page at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Article list. I've set the bot to update every 3 hours (after a couple restarts for fixes). Here's a list of its edits to the page. —SW— ^express 18:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like List of classic female blues singers, List of female bass guitarists and List of female heavy metal singers are being incorrectly listed as "Misplaced". Apart from that, it looks good. --Chris 12:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I thought I had that fixed yesterday but I must have overlooked something. The AfD tags on those pages were initially misapplied; they was pointing to the first AfD for the page, not the 2nd nomination. Note how the table lists the AfD Close Date as 2007. I fixed the AfD templates on the pages, but it looks like the code isn't correctly re-checking the page for some reason. I'll investigate. —SW— ^chatter 14:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that looks good now. Approved. --Chris 08:14, 11 November 2011 (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.