Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/LivingBot 18

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.

LivingBot 18

Operator: Jarry1250 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 18:59, Friday July 8, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): PHP (Peachy)

Source code available: ~~Haven't written it yet, will be (from my Toolserver SVN).~~ Code used for trial

Function overview: Reconstruct Village Pump archives into searchable format.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Pre_2007 (note that I have change my idea of the correct numbering system since)

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 30 page creations

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: There was a period when the Village Pumps were archived solely as page histories (if that sounds confusing, see here). This makes them unsearchable and generally posterity unfriendly. I intend to rebuild them into standard format archives /Archive A, /Archive B, etc to complement the existing /Archive 1, /Archive 2, etc. The page creation edit summary will link back to the original page history for authors (though there are also in-text signatures).

Discussion

Seems like a great task for a bot. How's the code coming along? Once you're ready I'd like to do a trial on one of the pumps (e.g. News), before approval for the rest. However, I also wanted to clarify a few things:

You say 30 page creations, is that because you will be creating 5 archives for each pump? How will you determine how big each archive should be?
Regarding the linking of the original page history. Will this be simply a link to the current history, or will you link to a specific portion of it (using offset and limit)? I'd also suggest that rather than just using the edit summary you use a box at the top of the page, which could also be used to declare the page an archive.
To make sure I understand the titles you'll be using, can you confirm that Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive A would be one of the archives?

Thanks - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, was away.

Approximately 5 for each pump. Archives will be "almost 200 kB", the modern standard for VP archives.
Yeah, I could probably manage a link to a specific portion of the history. As for other attribution items and archive templates, I'll be copying whatever MiszaBot does at the moment.
Yes, that is correct.

Okay for a trial? Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 10:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good.

Approved for trial (approx. 5 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Any one of the pumps. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at the data, it would seem, despite initial appearances, that (news) was used a lot more than the others. Hence, if we increase the limit from 200 to 210kB, it's the only one that doesn't fit in one archive.

Hence,

Trial complete. on News A and News B (these would go down to "H" by my reckoning), but I would like to abandon this system for all the others, and instead instigate an "Archive 0" approach.

In fact, as I have just realised, News doesn't have any existing archives, so we could create that as Archive 0, 1, 2, etc. If there's no opposition, I'm going to go ahead and move to that standard.

Approval is therefore for creating the other news archives (I will manually add the Archive 0s where necessary ). Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 16:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, I have just remembered to publish the source code I just used. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 15:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. The format of the archives is up to you really, as long as it's vaguely intuitive and you make sure to update Wikipedia:Village pump archive once you're done :). Other than that, all looks fine to me. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:30, 26 July 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.