Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot0612 9


 * 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

Bot0612 9
Operator:

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 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 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.

Discussion
Review them for issues immediately after run, revert/fix if there are problems. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Vital_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)
 * 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. 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Alright, then let's see a full run. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * - 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)

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)


 * 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.