Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FACBot 4

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: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 07:07, Wednesday, October 26, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: User:FACBot/tfa.pl

Function overview: Fill in Recent list in TFA.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User Talk:Hawkeye7#Recentlist

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: ~ 1 to 10

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Looks for TFA pages without the recent list and fills it in

Discussion

Approved for trial (10 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am a bit confused on the edit rate - is this 1 to 10 edits per day? — xaosflux ^Talk 11:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Per day. It depends on how many new TFA entries the coordinators create in a day. But the average will always be one per day. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  What would be even better than the bot would be for the fields to be filled in by Template:TFA preload. But doing this requires reading the previous pages, and I don't know how to do this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hawkeye7: Please post your trial diffs for review. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Trial complete. [1][2][3][4][5][6] A bug related to the handling of italics has been fixed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Task approved. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:47, 6 November 2016 (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.