Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TowBot
- 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
Speedily Approved.
Operator: Tow (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 20:22, Saturday June 16, 2012 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: No. Just a few lines using mwclient
Function overview:This bot runs after certain specified intervals of time and purges time sensitive templates like Template:Cite web so that they show the correct date.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Discussion on Bot Requests
Edit period(s): Daily
Estimated number of pages affected: 3 pages right now. I will add more if required.
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: This bot bot purges the templates Template:Cite web, Template:Cite news, Template:Cite book daily so that they show the correct date. The documentation of some of the cite templates (e.g. Template:Cite web, Template:Cite news) use {{ #time}} in the example |accessdate= parameter. When users create a cite, they usually copy the example string. Before doing that, they usually have to purge the template page manually to get the accessdate to be the current date. I think there are a lot of pages that could use an automatic, once a day purge when the time changes from 23:59 to 00:00.
Discussion[edit]
I'm probably an ironic person to be asking this, but ... is there a way of recasting the Template pages so that what gets copied by users using the examples is the unevaluated date function, so that evaluation happens when the person actually pastes the template into an article? --j⚛e deckertalk 21:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- There's an idea.
|accessdate={{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}would work just fine if it's only a copy/paste issue. Avicennasis @ 02:09, 27 Sivan 5772 / 02:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)- The problem is that subst doesn't work inside
<ref>tags, see T4700. Anomie⚔ 03:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)- Thanks, Anomie, I guessed I'd learn something. :) --j⚛e deckertalk 20:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that subst doesn't work inside
If all the bot's doing is purging the mediawiki cache on the template pages, you actually don't even need it to be botflagged (or really even approved for that matter, so long as your interval is sane), as it won't even be making any edits and doesn't even have to be logged in to push the necessary action. All it has to do is call this api string while logged in for GET (or POST while logged out). --slakr\ talk / 22:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's what I thought at first too but someone in the relevant discussion said that I still need approval. I am doing the task exactly the way you mentioned in your comment. I guess I should just withdraw this request now then, right? TOW talk 07:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm almost inclined to speedily approve this (restricted to the citation template template pages only), but first I wonder if the advantage of having the current date in the template documentation is really worth it considering the existence of Wikipedia:RefToolbar as a standard feature. Anomie⚔ 15:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- That is a concern too. However, I don't think purging a page is going to have any harmful effect on the project. I think the benefits outweigh the costs in this case. TOW talk 16:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- We're dealing with a very minor cost and a very minor benefit. Which ε is bigger? Anomie⚔ 20:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well I will just leave that question at your discretion. TOW talk 21:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- {{BAG assistance needed}} I would like to get a decision on this bot's approval. Thank You! TOW talk 22:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well I will just leave that question at your discretion. TOW talk 21:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- We're dealing with a very minor cost and a very minor benefit. Which ε is bigger? Anomie⚔ 20:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- That is a concern too. However, I don't think purging a page is going to have any harmful effect on the project. I think the benefits outweigh the costs in this case. TOW talk 16:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm almost inclined to speedily approve this (restricted to the citation template template pages only), but first I wonder if the advantage of having the current date in the template documentation is really worth it considering the existence of Wikipedia:RefToolbar as a standard feature. Anomie⚔ 15:16, 23 June 2012 (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.
