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

1. 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.

2. 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.