Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VWBot 7

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.

VWBot 7

Operator: VernoWhitney (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: No

Function overview: Relist articles blanked at WP:CP when their day is cleared but they have been overlooked.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 23#DumbBot, User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 24#Yet another bot idea

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 1 page/day

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: It would find pages which are blanked via {{subst:copyvio}} and listed on a daily WP:CP page but are no longer transcluded onto the main Wikipedia:Copyright problems or Wikipedia:Copyright problems/NewListings pages. This should only occur when a daily page is removed from the page but one of the blanked articles is overlooked. The edit to relist the articles will be combined with the existing edit for listing newly blanked pages (part of Task 3) and newly tagged close paraphrases (Task 5) already listed and approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VWBot.

Discussion

I have been running this task in userspace at User:VWBot/Trial. Edits include [1], and [2] both of which displayed a bug involving a delayed display of the actual transclusions into backlinks/What Links Here, but I fixed it with the most recent edit [3] VernoWhitney (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (5 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 19:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. ...so I ran this for the approved five days and it did exactly nothing, as no blanked pages were overlooked. <shrug> VernoWhitney (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is rather boring since it didn't make an edit and it hasn't even edited again in userspace since the first correct edit on the 19th, but I didn't think it would scare everyone off... VernoWhitney (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't that have an equivalent edit in the project space? –xeno^talk 14:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did that edit here. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the bot erred, or because it didn't have other articles to list with it? (Or because you were bored? =) –xeno^talk 14:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because that was while I was still trialing it for myself in userspace before I even filed this BRFA ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. But otherwise it should function ok? (It hooks into existing functional code to list on project pages, yes?) –xeno^talk 14:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it'll be included in the same single edit for close paraphrases and/or blanked pages which haven't been listed. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Everything looks good and you've experience in this area.

Approved. –xeno^talk 14:40, 3 September 2010 (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.