Operator: Rich Farmbrough ( talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): Perl/AWB
Source code available: AWB, yes; Perl no.
Function overview: Add {{
CatTrack}}
to monthly maintenance categories
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: about 2857 cats
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes
Function details: This will result in the categories' membership count being tracked by a tool-server tool, and enable longer term monitoring of trends.
Extensive manual testing has been successfully completed. See
[1] for example.
Rich
Farmbrough 01:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
Question, why is a template needed? Couldn't you just fetch those with some regex, or via Category:Clean up categories or similar? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: these cats are created by my bot in the first place, and are almost never edited by anyone else,so there's no reason to think that there's a "watchlist" issue. Moreover the cats are ephemeral, so the edits will, in due course, be deleted, so there's not even dump bloat.
Rich
Farmbrough, 07:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
reply
I don't think that my question about where this was discussed and gained community consensus was ever addressed. The implementation seems very suboptimal, making another ongoing maintenance task of tagging categories that can already be found with simple database queries. It would be better to let people work out the best implementation first and then approve a bot once that has consensus. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 11:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply
{{
BAG assistance needed }}
Rich
Farmbrough, 07:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
reply
The task itself, seems fairly uncontrovertial and safe, however Carl does make a valid point, namely is this the best way to perform this task? Rich, could you please expand on the overall picture behind this task, so we can get an idea of what the tracking is trying to accomplish and if this is the best way to do it? The other important question is, whether any of these tasks should be approved at all atm considering the impending arbcom decision; However I think that is best rasied on WT:BRFA, rather than here. -- Chris 12:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn by operator. OK we're getting nowhere with this. Lets focus on the other two.
Rich
Farmbrough, 13:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC).
reply
Operator: Rich Farmbrough ( talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): Perl/AWB
Source code available: AWB, yes; Perl no.
Function overview: Add {{
CatTrack}}
to monthly maintenance categories
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: about 2857 cats
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes
Function details: This will result in the categories' membership count being tracked by a tool-server tool, and enable longer term monitoring of trends.
Extensive manual testing has been successfully completed. See
[1] for example.
Rich
Farmbrough 01:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
Question, why is a template needed? Couldn't you just fetch those with some regex, or via Category:Clean up categories or similar? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: these cats are created by my bot in the first place, and are almost never edited by anyone else,so there's no reason to think that there's a "watchlist" issue. Moreover the cats are ephemeral, so the edits will, in due course, be deleted, so there's not even dump bloat.
Rich
Farmbrough, 07:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
reply
I don't think that my question about where this was discussed and gained community consensus was ever addressed. The implementation seems very suboptimal, making another ongoing maintenance task of tagging categories that can already be found with simple database queries. It would be better to let people work out the best implementation first and then approve a bot once that has consensus. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 11:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply
{{
BAG assistance needed }}
Rich
Farmbrough, 07:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
reply
The task itself, seems fairly uncontrovertial and safe, however Carl does make a valid point, namely is this the best way to perform this task? Rich, could you please expand on the overall picture behind this task, so we can get an idea of what the tracking is trying to accomplish and if this is the best way to do it? The other important question is, whether any of these tasks should be approved at all atm considering the impending arbcom decision; However I think that is best rasied on WT:BRFA, rather than here. -- Chris 12:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn by operator. OK we're getting nowhere with this. Lets focus on the other two.
Rich
Farmbrough, 13:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC).
reply