Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Theo's Little Bot 14

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.

Theo's Little Bot 14

Operator: Theopolisme (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 00:34, Wednesday May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: on github

Function overview: For WP:TAFI—manages and updates the schedule by selecting nominations from the holding area.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia_talk:Today's_articles_for_improvement#Proposal:_use_Theo.27s_Little_Bot_to_automate_the_schedule_and_queue

Edit period(s): Weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: 13 per week

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No need

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: See below; taken directly from WikiProject's request, linked above:

Every section in WP:TAFIHA with more than 10% articles at TAFI's holding area has 1 fixed slot. Sections with at least 20% get two slots and so on.
The remaining slots (a maximum of 10) are distributed randomly to the other sections. These slots can go to any section without a slot already.
Move 1+ entry(ies) at the top of each section (as determined in above two steps) in the holding area to a new schedule entry (e.g. Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/21/1).
Create the weekly queue page (e.g. Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/21)
Populate the subpages of the queue page (e.g. 1 through 10).
In the event a section in the holding area is empty, the bot would randomly choose from another section to bring the number of articles to 10.
The bot then updates Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Schedule/real with the new week.

I've completed a full set of test edits here. This should give you a good idea of what the bot actually does. Thanks, and please let me know if you need clarification.

Discussion

Hello,

I just wanted to suggest a basic tweak in the algorithm that the articles with one slots already should also be included in the random draw. That way, it would not become too restrictive for selecting the random slots.

The current one also works fine enough though; but let me know if you favour that for any particular reason.

Also, would it be possible for a section to get two random slots in the draw?

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Here's the thing: we only have ten slots. I see no real reason why one section should get two out of ten slots (one from 10%+, another from random draw) when another gets none...that doesn't seem balanced, at least to me. Theopolisme (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm taking this algorithm could be revisited if the sectioning is changed? I still have my last question unanswered though (Whether it's possible the bot awards a section two random slots, or it always awards only maximum one per section) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"These slots can go to any section without a slot already", from the request details--so once a section is selected randomly, it won't be selected randomly again in that run. Theopolisme (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (8 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. When ready, this trial means 2 runs (I think) :)·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. I ran the bot for week 29, see [1]. This is the equivalent of one run; I didn't want to do any more because I'm still waiting for the project's decision on how far into advance we should schedule. I've done two runs in total, though, without hiccups, so I'd think this would be enough for approval. Theopolisme (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would ask the project to check, see if there is anything else they want, as the task seems so straight-forward, does not seem much to be discussed about it here. -68.107.136.227 (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi! As a member of the project and among the ones who requested this task, I can confirm that I dont require anything except maybe a running list of plain-links for the entire schedule (And not just the current week). Other than that, everything looks perfectly in order to me. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll have TOS's request fulfilled as soon as I get the dev computer up and running (I already coded it, just didn't add the function); other than that, per comments at the bottom of Wikipedia_talk:Today's_articles_for_improvement#Proposal:_use_Theo.27s_Little_Bot_to_automate_the_schedule_and_queue, I think we're ready for approval. Theopolisme (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - @TheOriginalSoni: Done See Template:TAFI/Blurb/static. Theopolisme (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Theo, see my comment above. I meant I also would have wanted another page with the links for the entire schedule, and not just the current week. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Doesn't the schedule already accomplish that...? Theopolisme (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It does not provide plain links. So when I am trying to use the links (I primarily use it currently for 1- Making teahouse banners for TAFI and 2 - Making one line blurbs for all TAFIs) only, I'm forced to copy-paste the name of the article from the Schedule, a task taking a lot of time, and effort, considering how simply it can be automated. I hope that such a page will also come in handy should we require it in the future. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved statements from TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also surprised to see that the current week in the Schedule is not automatically removed whenever the week ends. Requesting Theo to implement that. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I can get to this in a bit. Theopolisme (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is Done (commit) Theopolisme (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just so we're clear on this, will this task break because of adding the box for images? If so, would it be better to have the bot place (an empty box) and remove the picture box so incorrectly placed boxes wouldnt break the bot's function? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, the bot will simply remove the picture box, as long as it's located beneath that week's section header. Theopolisme (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the ~~archive~~ Schedule archive for scheduled entries is both outdated and supposed to be manual, I think the bot would be very helpful here. Instead of deleting the week from the schedule, it would just move it to the archival page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apprarently there is a schedule archive and a normal archive. Do the entries from HA selected for this week's schedule automatically make it to the normal "successful archive"? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, so I'm adding functionality to archive from schedule -> schedule archive now. Theopolisme (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done (commit) Theopolisme (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once all these questions are resolved, i would like to see the bot performing these tasks just to make sure there are no problems. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again

Approved for trial (8 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. When ready, this trial means 2 runs (as before) :) ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 08:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. See Week 29 and Week 30. Theopolisme (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 10:08, 6 June 2013 (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.