Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EarwigBot 3
- 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
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, unsupervised
Programming language(s): Python, Pywikipedia
Source code available: User:EarwigBot V/Source
Function overview: Create daily, monthly, and yearly categories at AfC submissions by date
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Here
Edit period(s): Daily at Midnight UTC
Estimated number of pages affected: Approximately one per day.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function details: Every day at midnight UTC, the bot will create the daily AfC category page at Category:AfC submissions by date, using the format Category:AfC submissions by date/DD FULLMONTHNAME YYYY. The page will consist solely of {{AFC submission category header}}. If it's the first day of the month, the bot will create a monthly category, Category:AfC submissions by date/FULLMONTHNAME YYYY with the same template, and if it's January 1st, the bot will create Category:AfC submissions by date/YYYY with the year. This ensures speedy creation of categories, and doesn't require us to make them far in advance. — The Earwig @ 18:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- Note that trialing this bot is impossible until January 2nd. — The Earwig @ 18:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. beginning Jan 2-ish. MBisanz talk 01:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- I realize the trial is still in progress, but I'd like to post a quick update. The bot make it's first edit, and everything (from its own logs) seems fine. — The Earwig @ 04:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps the bot could work up to a week ahead? This would give a margin should there ever be a problem with the bot or toolserver in future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- That would definitely be possible, but I would personally prefer a few days; a week seems like too much. I can't recall the last time the Toolserver was completely down for more than a few hours. Would anyone else like to weigh in on this? — The Earwig @ 19:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- If the toolserver is down, it is usually down for less than 24 hours or more than a few days, so a 2-3 day margin would like buffer against all reasonable failures. MBisanz talk 01:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see the bot is still running. I'd say making the bot create the pages two/three days in advance would be a good idea. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry about that, I had semi-forgotten about this task. The code has been updated to create the pages three days in advance. I'll run it once more today, then it's
Trial complete. — The Earwig @ 19:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry about that, I had semi-forgotten about this task. The code has been updated to create the pages three days in advance. I'll run it once more today, then it's
- I see the bot is still running. I'd say making the bot create the pages two/three days in advance would be a good idea. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- If the toolserver is down, it is usually down for less than 24 hours or more than a few days, so a 2-3 day margin would like buffer against all reasonable failures. MBisanz talk 01:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- That would definitely be possible, but I would personally prefer a few days; a week seems like too much. I can't recall the last time the Toolserver was completely down for more than a few hours. Would anyone else like to weigh in on this? — The Earwig @ 19:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps the bot could work up to a week ahead? This would give a margin should there ever be a problem with the bot or toolserver in future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I realize the trial is still in progress, but I'd like to post a quick update. The bot make it's first edit, and everything (from its own logs) seems fine. — The Earwig @ 04:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Approved. (X! · talk) · @779 · 17:41, 17 January 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.