Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/UcuchaBot

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.

UcuchaBot

Operator: Ucucha (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 02:51, Thursday March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, unsupervised

Programming language(s): PHP (and a cron job); uses the Snoopy class and some code from Citation bot

Source code available: On request

Function overview: Bolds today's featured article on WP:FA

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WT:FAC#Zorglbot, mainpage bolding, busted [1]

Edit period(s): Once a day

Estimated number of pages affected: 1

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: Fetches name of TFA and bolds that article on WP:FA. It's currently editing User:Ucucha/FA as an example. Ucucha 02:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This bot should not be controversial; the necessary task was done for years by Schutzbot, which has frequently "busted" and has been busted since March 18. Ucucha can be counted on to make sure the new bot operates correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the benefit of bolding the article on WP:FA? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It makes it possible to see which articles have not yet been TFA; only such articles are eligible for TFA in the future. Ucucha 12:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, redundant reply) That is how we determine which articles have already been featured at TFA (on the mainpage); Raul654 (talk · contribs) uses it for scheduling. (We both have a script installed that changes the color of the article depending on whether it has appeared at TFA.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (1 week or so to show some diffs). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Already approved for a previous bot. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; it'll edit to WP:FA tonight. Ucucha 12:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all-- Ucucha, would you let Schutz know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave him a link to this BRFA; he should be able to look at this page himself if he returns. Ucucha 13:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha, at what time is it going to run? It's helpful to me if it runs just after 0 UTC, because 1) then I know not to promote at that time, to avoid edit conflicts, and 2) when the date changes at 0 UTC, I remember to make sure the bot ran. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's now set to run at 00:10 (i.e., in a minute), but I'll change that to 00:01. Ucucha 00:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That worked. It'll also give a more informative edit summary tomorrow. Ucucha 00:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans, we're finally back in business, one less thing to worry about :) Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about bots and even less about BRFA, so forgive me if this is a stupid question, but is this bot's lack of a bot flag intentional? Not that I suppose it makes much difference for making one edit a day. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's in a trial period. It will get a bot flag when it gets approved. Ucucha 01:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} It's been a week now. Everything has gone well; see Special:Contributions/UcuchaBot. Ucucha 01:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. Don't see any reason not to approve. Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 01:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Edits look fine. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:13, 12 April 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.