Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FACBot

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.

FACBot[edit]

Operator: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 07:03, Monday September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: User:Hawkeye7/fac.pl

Function overview: Supports the FAC, FAR and TFA processes. This replaces the GimmeBot

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: Ten per diem

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details:

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Life without bots

If FACClosed = “promoted” then

Remove FAC archive page from WP:FAC

Add FAC archive page to Featured Log

Add article name/link to appropriate section of WP:FA (note/link article name in edit summary) and increment total number at the top

Add bulleted article name/link plus date in the form (dd mmm) to FA section of WP:GO

Else

Remove FAC archive page from WP:FAC

Add FAC archive page to Archived Nominations

EndIf

Discussion[edit]

Were you also planning to:

Mark each day's TFA at WP:FA by adding {{FA/BeenOnMainPage| }} around the entry, and
Update WP:FANMP each day to add new promotions and to remove TFAs?

It would be great if you could add this to the tasks. Other TFA-related tasks (adding the scheduled date to the {{Article history}} and notifying major contributors of the scheduling) were being handled by a bot as well, but I don't know whether you want to take these on (either now or later). Bencherlite ^Talk 11:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will do the first two asap. How would the Bot know when an article is scheduled? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find the answer in the code used by the previous bothere. See also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/UcuchaBot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/UcuchaBot 4. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the view of the FAC coordinators at the discussion that you link was that the bot should *not* add the article to WP:FA, but should leave that to be done manually, as it was under the previous system. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Working out what the old system did was the hard part. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been blocked. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

((BAGAssistanceNeeded)) As this is a bot run by a known bot operator and carrying out previously approved tasks, which are much in demand at FAC etc, can we get an "approved for trial" (or even a "speedy approval") sooner rather than later, please? Thanks. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that I am watching and will review test edits (as I performed these tasks for years, wrote the process steps that the bot is based on, etc). Everything looks good so far, and many thanks to Hawkeye for taking this on. Maralia (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

((BotTrial|days=3)) -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 I noticed no bot activity for almost 2 weeks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just returned from Brisbane. Hope to be able to get going on this after next weekend. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

((BotTrial|days=10)) -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the edits surrounding a couple of FAC promotions, and found the same sort of glitch in implementing articlehistory in the edit at Talk:Æthelstan A and the edit at Talk:Rodent. The bot detected and deleted GA templates on both talk pages, but did not record the GANs in articlehistory in either case, instead recording only the FAC.
I will have time to review more edits tomorrow. Thanks for getting this underway! Maralia (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are tricky. New code has been added to the Bot to handle this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have been watching for another batch of edits since then, but haven't seen any. I just noticed that there haven't been any intervening promotions, and that the 10 day trial is up today. I am confident in the general function of the bot and would be happy to see this task approved. I will take my last couple of requests for minor refinements to the bot's talk page. Maralia (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there haven't been any more promotions. The delegates often wait for the weekend. I am happy to incorporate further refinements. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 is trial complete? I noticed some edits after trial period. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trial is complete. An issue was raised about an unusual case which had to be checked out. No more runs will be made until the Bot is approved. A request has been made for the Bot to be enhanced to handle FAR, which will be the subject of another request for approval. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

((BotTrialComplete)) -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

((OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D)) I'm assuming this request is being superseded by Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/FACBot_2 ? --slakr^\ talk / 02:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is to handle FAC. FacBot 2 is to handle FAR. People keep asking for the Bot to handle additional tasks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2014 (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.