Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DYKHousekeepingBot 3

< Wikipedia:Bots | Requests for approval
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.

DYKHousekeepingBot 3

edit

Operator: Shubinator (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 16:40, Friday January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: No

Function overview: Notify Did you know (DYK) nominators if their DYK nomination hasn't been transcluded.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User talk:Shubinator#Another thing....

Edit period(s): Approximately daily, though the frequency may be changed in the future

Estimated number of pages affected: 0-15 per week, once things settle down

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: Did you know (DYK) nominations should be transcluded by the nominator to Template talk:Did you know. On each run, the bot will find all untranscluded DYK nominations more than a day old and notify the nominator with {{DYK nomination needs transcluded}} that the nomination hasn't been completed.

Discussion

edit

Why don't you simply transclude the nomination for them? Ucucha (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's near-impossible to automatically figure out which date the nomination should go under for expansions. Shubinator (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the nominator might intend to complete the nomination in a day or two, or maybe the nominator had second thoughts and decided not to nominate. Shubinator (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha: the bot is the only way to automatically detect un-transcluded nominations. Currently, we only find out about un-transcluded noms months later when someone comes along asking why their nom was never reviewed and we notice that they never transcluded it. Without a bot, there's simply no way to know (at least, I haven't discovered one) that someone's nom needs transcluding. rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that; I was merely suggesting an alternative way to handle the untranscluded noms found. But Shubinator's arguments are convincing, so I support the bot in its current form. Ucucha (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's going to happen with the backlog? (Or is there no backlog?) - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 19:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean un-transcluded noms from a long time ago? rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean untranscluded noms from a long time ago, the bot will notify those nominators on its first run. Shubinator (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes :) Is that likely to be many? - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 01:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the bot were to do its first run today, it would find 69 old untranscluded noms, 60 of which were created before January 7th. Shubinator (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These un-transcluded old noms have been a sticky issue in the past, but my intuition is that any from before Christmas will be summarily rejected, whereas ones less than a month old might be given some leeway. If Shubinator already has a list of the old noms, maybe we can manually fail some of the too-old ones (since sending the nominator a message would be pointless) before running the bot. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List below, from oldest to newest. Timestamps are here. Shubinator (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Untranscluded noms list more than a day old as of 16:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll post at WT:DYK about these; once people come to an agreement on how many can be summarily rejected, I (or someone else) can go through and fail them so they don't appear on the list anymore when the bot runs. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been brought to my attention at WT:DYK that the bot seems to have picked up some false positives (apparently mostly on more noms from 5-7 days ago), including 1, 2, 3, 4. Do you have any idea what might have caused this? I checked the nominations themselves and didn't notice any issues with them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Untranscluded noms list more than a day old as of 16:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Looks good now, I skimmed through and didn't see any false positives in the most recent 10 or so. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there are no major objections. Shubinator, if the same person is going to be notified multiple times (looks like a few of the users above are repeat offenders), will the bot put all of the notifications in the same section rather than creating a new section for each one? If so, I think this one's probably ready for trial. — madman 19:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the bot is coded to create a new section for each notification. I could tweak the bot so each run it places multiple notifications in the same section; however, the bot would then create a new section for a notification on a later run. Would that be acceptable? Shubinator (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Once you've tweaked, you are Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. — madman 20:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shubs: Per WT:DYK#Rejecting old noms that were never nominated, I went through and failed most of the noms that were more than 1 month old. Just letting you know so you're not surprised when you run the trial and only the more recent ones get caught! rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) Shubinator (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The trial has begun. Trial edits are here. Sorry for the delay. Shubinator (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a perfect run.  Approved. — madman 06:13, 4 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DYKHousekeepingBot_3&oldid=1138379977"