Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/LivingBot 9

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

LivingBot 9

Operator: - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)}

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): PHP

Function Overview: Update Wikipedia:Good articles/recent automatically, if not done manually.

Edit period(s): Every 15 minutes, day and night.

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

Function Details: Per bot request:

Grab links, with surrounding italics if present, from WP:GA
Compare these with the ones last time round
Check new entries against the existing list of recent additions
If not present, add to list (all new ones in one edit, naturally).

I have this mocked up on a separate server, though as soon as I get CRON set up from the toolserver I'll put it on there. To try it out, add a link to User:Jarry1250/GAL (like my examples), and wait for the next check (~00, 15, 30, 45 during the hour). Then watch as the bot adds it to User:Jarry1250/GAR. I can also trigger it manually if you ping me on IRC.

Discussion

Helpful timestamp: - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are 16 new ones since the last check (15 minutes ago), will it choke? If I manually added one, but didn't use the italicization that I should have, will this bot add mine a second time? If I manually added one and forgot to remove one, so that there are temporarily 16, how will the bot handle the situation? – Quadell ^(talk) 19:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay:

~~I'll try it. Prediction:~~ Net adding of the bottommost 15 as displayed on WP:GA.
Yes, but this won't be as common as one might presume. If you've just added it to WP:GA with italics, are you going to forget to add them the second time? The adding of other peoples to the list is done by a few regulars, and I presume that the bot will end up replacing much of that mechanical work, if not all of it anyway.
The bot isn't there to / can't fix other people's errors - the bottommost one will be removed (as well as a new one added to the top), keeping the number as 16.

- Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed an old listing was reposted. Will work on fixing that bug tomorrow. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (1 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. (The clock starts on this whenever LivingBot makes its first GA edit.) – Quadell ^(talk) 12:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. I've changed the files it's monitoring, letting it do the rest. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous trial seems to have bombed, and I see you reverted. Let's try that again. Approved for trial (1 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles regularly get moved, so the names on WP:GA change. Are those excluded from new listings? Should they? Gimmetrow 17:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I've been working on patching this, so they don't get marked up. In short, if in the five minute interlude the number of GAs listed hasn't gone up (i.e. gone down or no change), no edit will be made. And in case anyone's wondering, I'm pursuing this one until it works properly. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. There are some similar tasks this approach might be able to handle. Newly-listed articles on WP:FA and WP:FL and other processes are listed on WP:GO with a date. Can you keep this in mind as you work on the code? Gimmetrow 18:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I've rather been taking advantage of the limited nature of the request thus far. Of course, I'd happily consider expanding, but only once I've got this one working first! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let us know when you're confident in the bot's performance. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Looks like it's working great now. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.