Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MusikBot 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.

MusikBot 8

Operator: MusikAnimal (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 19:22, Saturday, December 5, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Ruby

Source code available: GitHub

Function overview: Handles the day to day tasks of the Today's Articles for Improvement project (as opposed to the weekly tasks)

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WT:TAFI#TAFIDaily bot task (permalink)

Edit period(s): Twice daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 4

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: The bot will check Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations twice daily and:

Add entries marked as {{approved}} to the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for improvement/List
Archive the discussion of approved or unapproved (marked as {{unapproved}} or {{not approved}}) entries:
- ClueBot currently does archiving, and does so as soon as a nomination is approved/unapproved
- Archiving needs to be done by MusikBot, as otherwise there could be timing conflicts, where ClueBot archives the discussion before MusikBot gets a chance to parse the page for approved entries
- Discussions are archived to [[Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations/Archives/current year/current month]]
- Links to the year/month pages are updated on the archive index page at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations/Archives. See the example on testwiki of how the index page will appear once this BRFA is approved
- Archiving occurs when it's been over three hours since the last comment was made, as specified by User:MusikBot/TAFIDaily/config.js
- The regex and logic is similar to what MusikBot does at WP:PERM
- Archiving occurs independently of task #1. That is, an approved entry might get added to the list but the discussion may not necessarily be archived yet. This gives !voters a chance to see the result of the discussion. The bot ensures approved entries are not duplicated within the list
Rotate the nominations
- This occurs only once a day
- This is done to ensure all nominations get fair visibility, as the list can become quite long and !voters may never scroll down far enough to see and !vote on other nominations
- Rotating includes moving the first level 2 heading (Arts, Geography, etc.) to the bottom of the page
- The nominations within each level 2 section are also rotated
Future plans pending consensus:
- Automatically ~~mark entries as {{unapproved}}~~ comment that a nomination is a duplicate if it is already listed at Wikipedia:Articles for improvement
- Automatically add the article class assessment if it was not added by the nominator
- Once the new Pageview API is deployed the bot could check and add page views if they are not provided by the nominator

The bot has several configurable options at User:MusikBot/TAFIDaily/config.js, including enabling/disabling of specific tasks. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Wait, the "already there" bit should be "{{unapproved}} There is already an article in the Articles for Improvement.", because otherwise the unapproval would be vague. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I would definitely have the bot explain why it was unapproved :) I need you guys to give the OK on that first, though. It's often inadvisable to have bots close discussions, but I figure here it's advantageous as it avoids the manual work of making sure it's not a duplicate nomination. I guess alternatively the bot could just comment stating it's a duplicate, and not outright mark as unapproved. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is an even better idea! Just in case of false positive. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I've amended the the bullet point above. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (14 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I assume two weeks is long enough to test all major conditions. If you think it's done enough work by the first week, you can finish the trial early. (Or we can go longer if things are slow.) — Earwig ^talk 12:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig, perhaps 1 month or 30 days, because I was thinking about testing MusikBot's automatic unapproval of articles at WP:TAFINOM if the nominated articles have no comment for over 21 days. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. MusikAnimal might be away at the moment, though. — Earwig ^talk 01:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has actually already covered this ground [1][2], although there the script was manually invoked. You may wish to see it archive right at the 21-day mark, not sure how long that will take. I don't mind waiting, though. And yes, I'll be unavailable while cruising the high seas till Tuesday :) Happy holidays to you both — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete.

There was a particular run that illustrates all the major aspects of the task. Here there was one approved nomination (List of Microsoft software) and one automatically unapproved nomination as it received no discussion after 21 days (Linda Ronstadt):

Add approved entry to nomination list [3]
Remove discussions from nomination board [4]
Archive to /Archives/Year/Month [5]
Followed by a rotation of the nomination board, putting {{empty section}} under "Mathematics and computer science" as after the archiving it became empty [6]

Archiving two nominations as unapproved:

Remove discussions from nomination board [7]
Add to /Archives/2015/12 [8]

2016 brought us a new month and year for the archives:

Removing two discussions from nomination board (both approved) [9]
Adding them to the new /Archives/2016/1 page [10]
Only thing here is that the discussion was closed on 31 December and not 1 January. This is because the bot runs every 12 hours. I can definitely fix this (go by newest timestamp and not current time), but I consider this a minor issue that only happened here by circumstance.
Adding an entry for this month to the archive index page [11]
Here the bot missed a newline, which I've fixed. We can wait till February to prove this is fixed... if you want!

More diffs:

Another rotation that added empty sections: [12]
Rotation with no other modifications: [13]

That pretty much covers it. Thanks for your time! — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[14] – "automated respone"? — Earwig ^talk 01:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't another test for [15] require waiting until 2017? I assume each month appears on the same line... — Earwig ^talk 02:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for me; no other apparent issues. My closing point from MusikBot 7 applies here, so after the above is resolved I think we're good to go. — Earwig ^talk 02:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"response" is the wrong word, it's not like at WP:PERM where you respond to a request (code was adapted from that task). Here the bot is closing a discussion, so "Automated closure" I assume will do? And yes, brain fart indeed. 2017 is a long wait, but here's the proof on testwiki [16] =P

Finally, the minor issue of archiving to the wrong month is somewhat of a tedious bug fix, it turns out. To be 100% fool-proof, the bot would need to go through each discussion ready for archiving and check the timestamp, a rework of how it's doing it now. I'm going to safely assume the TAFI team is alright with side-stepping this. — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine "response" is fine, but surely it should be spelled correctly!

The wrong month issue doesn't seem like a problem; I think we can leave that as-is. — Earwig ^talk 04:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I'm dyslexic. Seriously, I should look into it. Didn't even notice the typo after you pointed it out! This is why I created {{user bad typist}}. Not a great trait for a programmer either, but what can you do. So are there any outstanding concerns with this task? — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, we're good; any other issues can be fixed if they come up.

Approved. — Earwig ^talk 05:39, 8 January 2016 (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.