Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TAP Bot 3


 * 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 The result of the discussion was Symbol oppose vote.svg Withdrawn by operator.

TAP Bot 3
Operator:

Time filed: 21:12, Tuesday January 1, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: github

Function overview: updating vital articles

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Bots/Requests for approval/Legobot II 3, BOTREQ

Edit period(s): Weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: WP:VA and subpages

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details:
 * 1) Checks the talkpage of a vital article, reading the class
 * 2) Checks if it needs updating
 * 3) Updates WP:VA or subpage if needed.

Discussion

 * A long time ago, Legobot II was approved to do this task. See Bot requests/Archive 51 for the status on that bot, hence this one. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Two questions:
 * I'm not able to look at the source code where I am right now, but am I right in assuming that this is a newly written bot, and not based on the original code written for Legobot?
 * It looks like Legobot ran under supervision for this task, will this bot be supervised as well? Hers fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 17:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe #1 is a yes.  Snowolf How can I help? 17:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a newly written bot. I could possibly run under supervision, if you wish? Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really care either way, I was just curious. This seems a simple enough task that it shouldn't be necessary. Hers fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 18:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ask. Since this is a newly written bot, should we expect it to perform exactly as the old one did, or have you made any improvements/other changes? Hers fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 18:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It shall perform exactly the same, but it parses the content of a page, therefore it will need a trial. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I have no idea why I requested that one as supervised.
 * Looking through the code, I didn't see anything that would handle the and  templates?
 * From a technical implementation perspective, I found it to be faster to simply look through the categories, since that didn't require parsing templates and didn't involve fetching page content. It might be worth considering that. Legoktm (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * On line 78, please change key_re.match to key_re.search.
 * It is worth noting that the code still parses the page content, rather than checking categories. I would say that the bot is ready for a trial, in order to experimentally ensure that none of us overlooked any bugs when we read the code. → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 05:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed (line 78). Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good -- Chris  10:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Does a regular BotTrial allow for one full run to be completed, or are there other restrictions the bot is under? → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 07:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It means the operators' judgment and common sense should be used. If one run goes smoothly, then that's all it needs. If the run goes pretty smoothly, but still needs a few tweeks, the bot can have a slightly longer trial. If something goes really wrong the operator should stop the bot, report back here and we'll take it from there. -- Chris 07:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll run this soon. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

→ Σ σ  ς. (Sigma) 06:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We have a single edit here. Already, there are a few things I would like to note.
 * Unassessed articles will have their parameter to icon removed.
 * Some forms of presenting the template (eg {{physics | class=start | importance=high}}) will also result in the removal of the parameter to icon.
 * The bot should not change the case of the parameter to icon.
 * Strange things happened to the icon for light-year and kilogram. This will be thoroughly investigated shortly.
 * - However, see Σ's comment. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Any updates about E's issues?  MBisanz  talk 22:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Any updates?  ·addshore·  talk to me! 18:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Any new updates?  MBisanz  talk 11:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Source code modified. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you like another trial (which you can do if you want) or do you want to go straight to approval?  MBisanz  talk 10:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 *  ·addshore·  talk to me! 13:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Another trial please, I need to check if it completely works after the fixes. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * as before  ·addshore·  talk to me! 14:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not yet, other than an IndexError that I shall sort out shortly. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm withdrawing this because of the excessive amount of issues which have been found during the creation of this BRFA. I have been unable to find any solutions to the problems which there are with this bot (for example, this when there is no proof of the errors occurring in the console). I may, or may not re-open this in the future if a solution is found. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2013 (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.