Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VeblenBot 8
- 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: CBM (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 01:18, Wednesday August 17, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): PERL
Source code available: Toolserver svn
Function overview: Posts messages at Wikipedia talk:Peer review when the template limits are nearly exceeded
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): The bot has been performing this task since 2008; I simply forgot to file a request for it at the time. Here is a link to the original announcement for the peer review people (go to the bottom of the section) [1]. Here is their reaction to the bot's first message: [2].
Edit period(s): Not more than once an hour, but only leaves a message if it is needed
Estimated number of pages affected: 1, repeatedly
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Not applicable
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function details: The peer review page can exceed the template limits if too many large peer reviews are transcluded. VeblenBot leaves a note on the talk page when this is imminent, to remind someone to manually un-transclude some peer reviews. This system has been operational for years, but at the time I forgot to file a separate task request for it.
Discussion
[edit]- As the person who usually fixes peer review when the size limit is exceeded, I can say that this is very useful. Without it, the only way we would know there was a problem would be when PR stopped displaying altogether (as then WP:PR just does not show any reviews). This is a no brainer, please approve. If you can't approve it on WT:PR, could it go to some other page that I (and anyone else interested in maintaining PR) could watch? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'll have it post on my user talk page in the meantime. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I approve of the task itself – my only concern is that it leaves the notices a bit too often. Note that here there are a ton of them. No problems with the bot checking the page every hour, but perhaps it could make sure that it doesn't leave another notice more than once every 6/12/24 hours? Or maybe it should only leave a further notice when the page passes certain size "thresholds" (e.g. once at <150,000 bytes left, again at <75,000 bytes left, etc). The message could also be made clearer for those who are not familiar with how the bot works, perhaps by providing a link back to Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size. All this is just so we can avoid another one of those help desk threads and the subsequent panic. — The Earwig (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I added the link to the code already. The reason the bot runs so often is that different things can cause the problem - any peer review could get too long, and there are lots of them, with the list changing all the time. So the bot doesn't have any way to tell if the peer review page was fixed and then broken again, or if it simply never fixed. But Ruhrfisch and the other people who handle the messages have always seemed satisfied with the current system; the timestamp when I last edited the code was in 2009. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is useful to have the notices every hour. I remove them when the problem is fixed, and use the hourly time interval as a check (did I partially transclude enough to fix the PR size?). Agree a link back to to Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size would be useful. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I added the link to the code already. The reason the bot runs so often is that different things can cause the problem - any peer review could get too long, and there are lots of them, with the list changing all the time. So the bot doesn't have any way to tell if the peer review page was fixed and then broken again, or if it simply never fixed. But Ruhrfisch and the other people who handle the messages have always seemed satisfied with the current system; the timestamp when I last edited the code was in 2009. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest, this request seems like a rather bureaucratic waste of time. The bot is already running, with the people in care of the page having no complaints about it. This request affects a grand total of one page, and that page is being edited on request of its editors, so presumably any issues with the bot's editing would already have been identified. It seems to me that these one-off self-requests should not require all the rigmarole of a full RFBA. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Better safe than sorry should any future issues arise. On the other hand, a note on WT:BRFA may have been sufficient. In any case, no problem speeding this. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedily Approved. Long-running task. One page affected. Trusted botop. No objections. Minor problems and tweaking can be discussed on bot's/op's talk. May I also remind/suggest using better edit summaries per WP:BOTPOL. See also WP:BOTN#General notice to bot owners about edit summaries. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. It is not possible to set custom edit summaries for this task because Mediawiki doesn't permit setting a different edit summary when a new section is created. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:32, 17 August 2011 (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.