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 The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.

Operator: OpenTheWindows (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: automatic

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: yes, the code goes here

Function overview: Turn the Wikipedia Signpost into books

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Book:Wikipedia_Signpost.2FYYYY-MM-DD

Edit period(s): when the signpost comes out

Estimated number of pages affected: 1 and always in the Book namespace

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N (will only create books)

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

Function details: When a new Wikipedia Signpost comes out, this task creates a new book for the Wikipedia Signpost

Discussion[edit]

• Could it do it for all the previous issues too? It would be tedious to do them by hand. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Puffy (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great. I'll probably have refinements for the bot eventually (such as monthly compilations, category tweaks, etc...), but for now my original request is a good start. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. There is also a ticketing system using Trac, but you need an Assembla account. Puffy (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why won't you make the bot exclusion compliant?

What is the 1 affected page? Josh Parris 11:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the reason the bot is not exclusion compliant is because only one page is effected (I'm not quite clear on this, isn't the bot creating a separate page for each book? If so I think the bot should require manual approval before overwriting a page (i.e. editing a page which has already been created), but there would be no need for exclusion compliance then. The format should continue to be Book:Wikipedia Signpost/yyyy-mm-dd (allows for easy sorting by date). Andewz, are you planning to create a book for all previous issues, as mentioned above? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From experience, I don't think manual approval of the edit is necessary. If somethings needs to be fixed, then it will need to be fixed across several issues of the signpost. It is much more likely that a manual edit would be vandalism, or that it would break something. Exclusion compliant however, could be useful (for instance if WildBot and this bot keep fighting each other). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per above, I'm clarifying:

• Yes, only a book will be made
• Only one edit to the book is made. The bot does not care about vandalism. We've got rollbackers and admins
• WildBot would actually be quite useful. By using the output it makes, the code can be improved.
• When making the books, if a book exists, I think I'll write a template to the talk page.

Puffy _{fish penguins} 20:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the whole point of the request is to have one book per signpost issue... And to have a bot update and do maintenance on these books when necessary... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only one book will be made per signpost, you mean? Unless you put in a catch for when it's editing already created books, then I think it will be best to make this exclusion compliant, which shouldn't be too difficult, there is an example at Template:Bots you could use. As I asked before, are you planning to create a book for all previous issues, as mentioned above? Where will the book(s) be created? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's also exclusion compliant now. Just ensure a ((bots)) deny line has "SpeakerBot". I will probably not create old books. Puffy _{fish penguins} 19:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you will create one book for each Signpost issue, but you only intend to do it for current and future issues, not back issues. Is my understanding correct? Josh Parris 15:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from up above (first couple of messages) the bot will be able to do previous issues of the signpost too. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, true. OpenTheWindows, sir! 23:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTW, perhaps you could answer all of the questions I asked on your talk page? Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK:

• if it is one book per signpost-yes
• if you will be turning all previous issues into books-yes

OpenTheWindows, sir! 22:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that the talk pages won't be turned into books, not even as Letters to the Editor.

What will happen if the bot is run multiple times; will it recreate issues if they've been modified by humans since it was first created? Josh Parris 03:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q1: This might be planned for later. Q2: No. OpenTheWindows, sir! 03:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ideal answer to Q2 would be "Yes, on request". I will probably do some trivial edits on some of these books, and this should not get in the way of large-scale maintenance. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but you could actually improve the bot's produced books instead in later iterations (there's svn) (modified 03:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)). OpenTheWindows, sir! 03:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is forbidding the bot from improving old books because someone edited them doesn't make sense, because someone editing the books is usually the first step to improving the bot. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I get that. Bot will check for books and only create new ones. OpenTheWindows, sir! 04:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, not to pile-on on you, or discouraged you from editing Wikipedia / writing bots in the future , but in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SpeakerBot 2, you say you want to take a wikibreak after getting the bot flags. As User:Josh Parris could tell you, bots that run on books, such as User:WildBot require close supervision, and can require frequent code updates and excellent communication between the bot coder and people reporting problems. I feel my request was rather clear and detailed, and bot-coder friendly, yet at nearly every step of this request I feel you understood it poorly what was asked. It took about one week to get an answer to a simple question as how many pages would be affected. Another user has coded a working bot (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Signpost_Book_Bot) which does exactly what I asked, so I think it would be best to decline this request and proceed with the newer one by User:FinalRapture. Many thanks for giving it a try. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only am discouraged. But, 2 bots running the same task? I've commented on the other BRFA. OpenTheWindows, sir! 12:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a dup, I have to withdraw. OpenTheWindows, sir! 12:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator.

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.