- 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.
Operator:
Firefly (
talk ·
contribs ·
SUL ·
edit count ·
logs ·
page moves ·
block log ·
rights log ·
ANI search)
Time filed: 19:42, Saturday, May 26, 2018 (
UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available:
https://github.com/rwjuk/wikimediabots/blob/master/VitalArticlesBot/update_vital_article_counts.py
Function overview: Update the section counts and article assessment icons for all levels of
Wikipedia:Vital articles. Per
this BOTREQ.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Updating_vital_article_counts
Edit period(s): Daily, ~0000 UTC or other sensible time
Estimated number of pages affected: ~50 at present -
list here
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: Update the section counts and article assessment icons for all levels of
Wikipedia:Vital articles. If more than one project has assessed an article differently, the highest assessment is used. See this
example edit - more examples can be provided if needed.
Approved for trial (1 page of your choice per level). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Review them for issues immediately after run, revert/fix if there are problems.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
- I've written a bot fairly recently for the similar function
here, which purely based on the talk page categories. I have a few questions for this task
- After the ga/fa become dga/ffa, does it add the
/
back?
- Sidenote here, enwiki doesn't have a DGA category, this is bothering me.
-
Wikipedia:Vital_articles#Post-classical_history_(13_articles)'s
Crusades is rated A and GA, and noted as
, by selecting the highest assessment, would GA status be dropped?
-
Justincheng12345 (
talk)
08:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
- As it stands, yes, the GA status would be dropped, but that doesn't really seem a good idea. GA status is somewhat outside of the main assessment scale, so I'll tweak that functionality. I also missed the adding of the DGA/FFA statuses, I'll fix that.
Trial complete. in any case - levels 1-3 didn't need any updating, example edits for 4 and 5
here and
here.
This error was caused by my code erroneously counting line items without articles - I have duly self-trouted and fixed the code.
ƒirefly (
t ·
c ·
who? )
10:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Were all the assessment icons accurate? Or did it just not touch the icons?
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
11:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The bot deemed the assessment icons accurate - for an example of it editing icons, I've done a test
here where I set all the icons to stub beforehand. The bot correctly re-instated all the icons as they were in the revision before my edit. The one difference was
Gram per cubic centimetre - which was listed as 'stub' before, but is in fact unassessed.
ƒirefly (
t ·
c ·
who? )
11:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
Approved for extended trial (1 full run). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Alright, then let's see a full run.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
12:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
Trial complete. - see the bot's contribs.
This error was caused by the non-standard header formatting - code adjusted to take this and some other potential idiosyncrasies into account.
ƒirefly (
t ·
c ·
who? )
22:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
reply
Approved. I suggest uppercasing the A/B/C/Start... etc classes in the icons, but other than that, it seems good to go.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
23:46, 28 May 2018 (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.