Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 51

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.

AnomieBOT 51

Operator: Anomie ⚔

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, unsupervised

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/ACNClerk.pm

Function overview: Update crosslinks on WP:ACN and WT:ACN when content is archived.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 3#ACNClerk

Edit period(s): a few times a day

Estimated number of pages affected: 2, plus their archives

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: Announcements posted at WP:AC/N have a link to discussion at WT:AC/N, and those discussions have a link back to the announcement at WP:AC/N. It has been requested that AnomieBOT update these links as their targets are archived.

Discussion

Seems straight-forward. Approved for trial (1 week). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I don't know how often those discussion need archiving, so do >1 week if you need more edits. (Also I would say exclusion compliance is n/a in this case) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There will be a 20 edits to start, as it was requested that the bot process the existing archives too. While exclusion compliance isn't likely to come up, for the moment AnomieBOT will still respect {{bots}} on those pages. Anomie ⚔ 19:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far, so good; one minor issue - the bot seems to be too literal in its looking for pairs, for example it is not updating the link here to here presumably because of spacing around headers... –xeno^talk 22:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC) (pre content follows)[reply]
The link here was updated. The link here was not updated, because there is no heading matching the target of the link "Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Second call for applications"; ditto for this one. Spacing around the headers doesn't matter in the least, because the bot just reads out the TOC. Anomie ⚔ 23:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well-spotted (heading change after the original posting). What about this? (Just looking through for anything where there's still a "Discuss this" live - admittedly these are for the older business which won't affect the bot's ongoing operations). –xeno^talk 23:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Link is "Appeal to BASC by User:Wiathurhu", presumable heading in Archive 13 is "Appeal to BASC by User:Wiarthurhu". Anomie ⚔ 00:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will need to get my eyesight checked =) Since the errors are probably too diverse to program for, we'll just poke the humans to make sure they keep the headings consistent on a go-forward =) I see no barriers to approval. –xeno^talk 00:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bot changed a "Discuss this" link for a still-live discussion to "Archived discussion" [1] (2nd one). –xeno^talk 20:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. Fixed. Anomie ⚔ 02:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While minor things may need ironing out as they pop up, I see no barriers to approval. The bot has the ringing endorsement of the AC clerking team (who no longer feel guilty for not doing what the bot now does =). –xeno^talk 14:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Looks good to me, except for the minor issue mentioned above and already fixed. Anomie ⚔ 22:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Tim 1357 ^talk 02:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Tim 1357 ^talk 02:02, 24 January 2011 (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.