Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Theo's Little Bot 10

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: Theopolisme (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 01:55, Friday April 26, 2013 (

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python + mwclient + mwparserfromhell

Source code available: on github

Function overview: Automatically archives old nominations at

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 3 per month (TAFI noms page, TAFI monthly archive page, and TAFI holding area).

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No, unneeded

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

Function details: For each nomination on

• If the nomination has a net support of 3 or more (wherein opposes count as -1), it is moved to the
  Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Holding area
  .
• If the nomination has been inactive for 10 days and has less that 3 supports, the bot moves it to the current month's archive.

Discussion

• Seems like an appropriate bot task, and you have community support via a request, straight forward, experienced operator, good communication. -166.137.210.34 (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Accidentally did a test run with the bot account instead of my own to make sure replace() method was working alright—which it was. Sorry about that. —Theopolisme (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits or 5 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Day 1 of trial complete - to nominations page, to holding area, to archive —Theopolisme (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Trial complete. Edits can be viewed at [1] Theopolisme (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to stop the bot from leaving multiple new lines in a row? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Addshore: Sorry, I don't think I quite understand what you're talking about--could you give an example? Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the revision your bot made; notice that there is a blank line at the bottom of the Cantopop section. Before your bot edited there was not a blank line at the bottom of this section. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Hmm, I'm currently using the following regular expression to make each nomination: (\{\{TAFI nom[.\|].*?)(?=[^=]{{TAFI). @Legoktm: could you take a look, since you're the real wiz around here? Theopolisme (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be as simple as changing it to something like (\{\{TAFI nom[.\|].*?)\n?(?=[^=]{{TAFI) I think! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*headdesk* Thanks. Implemented on github. Theopolisme (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (a few more edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 12:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that didn't work. I tried (\n?\{\{TAFI nom[.\|].*?)[\n\r]*?(?=[^=]{{TAFI) as well...which didn't work. Hmmm...are the newlines using some other character? Theopolisme (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A hacky solution that *works* for now is just replacing \(UTC\)\n\n*(?!#) with (UTC)\n\n. Theopolisme (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) The comment directly above this says that you are using a "hacky solution"... Has that been resolved correctly? I would think that a requirement of approval would be "no hacky solutions", but as I'm a no-body here, I could be wrong. FTR, I think this is a great idea and I support this bot, I just think it should be as hack/bug free as possible before approval. Technical 13 (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that a non-hacky solution is called for. This is a long term, daily bot, can you try to fix this in a more robust way? -166.137.209.148 (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I currently don't have the regular expression skills to resolve this on my own. I asked Legoktm for help, but he didn't respond. Anyone is welcome to comment, of course: (\{\{TAFI nom[.\|].*?)(?=[^=]{{TAFI) is the regex I'm using currently, and I need it to match newlines above and below the text in question. Theopolisme (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Firstly, shouldn't it be (\{\{TAFI nom[.\|].*?)(?=[^=]\{\{TAFI) and then, couldn't you go a little further and mark the start with ^ like ^(\{\{TAFI nom[.\|].*?)(?=[^=]\{\{TAFI) In order for me to refine it further (I think it will need it) I need to figure out exactly what you are trying to find and what you are replacing it with... Unfortunately, I don't have quite that much time right this minute. Technical 13 (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• So you want to match the template, and any comment lines below? Stopping just before the next template? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The regex I have now matches the template and all comment lines below, stopping just before the next template, yes. But I now also want to match any and all whitespace before the template...and \n* didn't work. Maybe \s? Theopolisme (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • \s is the same as [
    \f] which would actually catch those instances of there being just a space or a tab on a line that we can't see but throws the match off. Technical 13 (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• @Technical 13 and Legoktm: Tried \s; didn't work. Here's the current code. Theopolisme (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • '(\s*\{\{TAFI nom[.\|].*?)[\r\n]*?(?=[^=]{{TAFI)' → '(\s*?\{\{TAFI nom[.\|].*?)\s*?(?=[^=]\{\{TAFI)' Is it being greedy at the start and are there unusual spaces in the middle? Also, shouldn't the { near the end be escaped? Technical 13 (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the source code I linked, I was already using exactly what you just suggested. And yes, it was (already) escaped. Cheers, and thanks for your help, Theopolisme (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: Are we good to go for approval? MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good for me if the bot operator thinks the spacing issue is covered, maybe run through initial edits himself and confirm, but it seems good to me. -166.137.209.152 (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• All good here; ready for approval. Theopolisme (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:50, 23 May 2013 (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

.