Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Amalthea (bot)

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.

Amalthea (bot) edit

Operator: Amalthea (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 16:36, Tuesday January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): C#

Source code available: no

Function overview: Maintain Wikipedia:Main Page history by creating a template-expanded snapshot of the Main Page once a day.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): The Main Page history has been maintained manually by User:PrimeHunter‎ for the past year. This bot task is intended to automatize the process.

Edit period(s): Daily.

Estimated number of pages affected: One per day.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No, bot only creates pages, with createonly set.

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

Function details: This bot task shall take over creation of daily Main Page snapshots as part of the WP:Main Page history (Raison d'être of the history can be found there).
It's a very simple task. Once a day, do:

Query https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=expandtemplates&title=Main_Page&text=%7B%7B:Main_Page%7D%7D
Create a new page titled WP:Main Page history/yyyy MMMM d with just that content.

Amalthea 16:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Non-contentious, happy that we can move straight to a technical trial.

Approved for trial (7 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll be back in a week. :) Amalthea 16:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete.

Amalthea 12:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They all look good to me. Did you notice any errors yourself? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 13:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No errors; I noticed that the pages lost the category and interwiki links because they are wrapped in a <noinclude> on the main page and I pass a transclusion of the main page to the expand templates function instead of the page source. However, I decided to call that a feature instead: meta information that should not be transcluded should also not be duplicated in the history; In particular, Category:Article Feedback Blacklist is not really appropriate on those pages since it's used for MediaWiki features, and the interwiki links would also be incorrect -- if anything the pages should be interwikied to main page history counterparts of other wikis. Amalthea 14:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice in advance, since this task really has to be done once a day, and there haven't been any problems with it, I'll keep the task active even though it hasn't been formally approved. I'll of course keep monitoring it. Amalthea 11:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I assume we're not bothering with multiple archives per day to catch DYKs? (And

Approved for extended trial (14 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. just to check there's no chance of different permutations of various sections causing problems.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 13:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started the archiving manually in 2011 without discussion. I considered DYK but didn't think it was worth multiple archives per day. Wikipedia:Main Page history#Articles appearing on the Main Page has the link Did you know with better organized DYK archives.

My manual archiving used "Main Page" as Context title at Special:ExpandTemplates to capture the Main Page appearance more closely, but I agree with Amalthea that it's not needed. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do set the context title actually, otherwise the purge link would go to some weird place. :) Amalthea 17:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First 7: Feb 1, Feb 2, Feb 3, Feb 4, Feb 5, Feb 6, Feb 7 I don't think anything can go wrong here presuming the ExpandTemplates function isn't buggy. Amalthea 17:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Straightforward task, edits look good. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2012 (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.