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

Time filed: 23:18, Wednesday, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: GitHub

Function overview: Moves (tentatively) approved hooks from the main DYK nomination page to the approved sub page.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): RfC and implementation discussion

Edit period(s): every two hours

Estimated number of pages affected: Two

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: The bot reads the DYK nom page and gets the section headers and nomination pages. It then reads those nomination pages and determines if they were closed (if so, they are removed from the page) or if they have at any point been approved are currently approved (if so, moves it to the approved page) else it leaves them on the page. It then reads the approved page and determines where to put the nominations depending on the style consensus determines. Example output can be seen at User:Wugapodes/DYKTest/0 and User:Wugapodes/DYKTest User:Wugapodes/DYKTest/1.

Nota bene The bot currently supports two different output styles, with section headers and without section headers, because there doesn't seem to be consensus on which to use. Once a decision is made, it can be set to output that one. I'm personally leaning towards with section headers because it makes the code a bit easier to maintain (plus I like it). So if anyone wants to try and read consensus on that at the discussion (or offer their opinions) feel free to do so. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I had this same idea of doing away with the overuse of templates when I worked on the User:MusikBot/RotateTDYK task. At the time people were content with the system they had. So glad to see something is being done about it! I wonder if this will conflict at all with my bot task, but I shall worry about that later...

Anyway, there's obviously a lot of reading to do before I can fully evaluate this. If another bot approver is more familiar with the DYK project then feel free to take over :) For now there's one thing that stands out right off the bat: the second output style (without section headers) is still in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. Wasn't that the point, to refactor it so that it doesn't exceed the template include size? — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is quite a wall of text, so hopefully someone has the stamina for it. The reason the without section headers page is not working out is actually the way it should function, weirdly enough. Because there's no sections, it just moves whatever hooks have been approved to the bottom of the list and removes them from the DYK page. Since I can't remove them from the DYK page (yet), every time it runs it moves all of them, but were the DYK page to have been edited, it would only move the newly approved ones. So it's a bug in testing that I can't really remove because it wouldn't function properly when it's actually approved (it's partly why I'm for with section headers). That being said, I'm trying to figure out ways to fix that so it can be properly tested. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that was actually a bigger problem than anticipated (if someone put a bunch of duplicate entries on DYKN, the bot would copy them and break the page) so I decided to fix it rather quickly. The next run should be at 7am UTC, so we'll see if it works out in a couple minutes. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MusikAnimal, your MusikBot was the other bot (aside from Shubinator's) that I thought might have an edit conflict with the new bot being created by Wugapodes. And, Wugapodes, it occurred to me as I read this thread that it's very possible for people to restore or readd their nominations to the main nomination page if they don't understand the process, and for the bot to "move" it to the new page, and end up with duplicate entries. I think it might be safest to have the bot make sure that any hook being moved does not already exist on the Approved page; if it does, then don't add it again to the Approved page (but do delete it from the main nominations page). Does this make sense? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does make sense, and I totally agree. Change already made for the non-section style, and I think for the section style but I'll check to make sure. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is in a stable state and I have decided on a style. After a discussion with BlueMoonset, I decided to write the bot to the common denominator of all the different opinions and a discussion on what features to add or modify will be had later rather than sitting on my hands hoping one emerges. As such, I have modified the bot to only move currently approved hooks, rather than hooks that were ever approved. It's a one way move, so if it's unapproved, it will stay on the approved page (will be discussed later). I chose to use the section style since there seems to be no consensus on which one to use and sections seem to be the status quo (will be discussed later). Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 00:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes If I understand what you are saying about "currently approved hooks, rather than hooks that were ever approved", if a hook has been pulled and the nomination re-opened, it won't be moved because it's technically unapproved after being re-opened. Yes? I'm OK with that, but just wanted to understand what you are saying. — Maile (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66 Yes, but since the bot only moves nominations one way, it really only matters for the first run and if a nomination is approved and then quickly unapproved. Essentially, if an approved or approved agf tick is not the last tick on a nomination when the bot runs, it won't be moved. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thanks for all the work you're doing on this. — Maile (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: I realized you may not have this watchlisted, so pinging you. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 21:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to get to this today... again I feel I should review the discussions first. I apologize if I am less responsive over the next week, you can blame it on mw:Wikimedia Developer Summit :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem. I know you're busy and just wanted to make sure this didn't get lost in the fray. Have a good summit! Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 22:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: Alright, I think I've got a grasp on how it should function. So let's let's focus on how the heck we're going to do an effective trial. I see that User:Wugapodes/DYKTest/0 (the new nominations page) is being regularly updated. Nominations removed here are because they were approved. However I also see some are being added [1]. Is this simply because the bot is copying the live nominations page, then re-removing any nominations that are approved? Then we have User:Wugapodes/DYKTest/1, which I assume represents the new "Approved" page. Under the new system, admins will add the approved DYK to the Main Page, then remove the transcluded nomination page from the Approved page, correct? Hence why you're not having the bot update it right now, since no one will be removing them?Also, if a nomination becomes unapproved, will someone manually re-add it to the nominations page? Otherwise it seems we'd run into the scenario that BlueMoonset mentioned where reviewers would never find the re-opened nomination. I really like the idea of an automated two-way road, but I see that evidently the rough consensus has settled on the one-way road, at least initially. We can proceed with this, but I suspect folks will get confused and you'll quickly want to move to a two-way system, which may require another complicated BRFA trial. We might want to think ahead and get that ironed out — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're pretty much correct except you've got the pages wrong. I realized the link above was to the wrong page (it's now fixed), which perhaps led to your current confusion. DYKTest/0 is the (poorly named) test approved page (DYKTest/1 was for the non-section style that I've since dropped). The correct link for DYKTest/1 is to User:Wugapodes/DYKTest which is a clone of the nomination page. But everything you said is, otherwise, spot on so I'll discuss that and you can look at the pages with fresh, correctly informed eyes. You'll notice that User:Wugapodes/DYKTest also adds nominations occasionally, and that's because it does indeed copy from the live nomination page like you said. The reason User:Wugapodes/DYKTest/0 removes nominations is because the page has an archive template, it adds them, obviously, if they are approved.

If a nomination becomes unapproved, whoever pulls the hook will have to re-add it to the page. We could perhaps have a pulled hook section that the bot doesn't update, just like the special occasion holding area. I think that a two-way road could find consensus, but my main concern is getting some system in place so that the transclusion problem on the nomination page can be resolved. I don't particularly mind another complicated trial, if anything I'm hoping a future discussion could lead to some positive changes for DYK that would necessitate it.

anyway, to answer your question of how a trial would work...I'm not particularly sure. We could simply let it keep updating these test pages, but ask some dyk regulars to try using these pages for a week and provide feedback on how it's working, perhaps by posting a note on WT:DYK. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, the San Francisco events have concluded and normal wiki life should resume now :) If you don't mind, perhaps you could rope in the DYK regulars to try out the new system? I think a one week trial sounds about right. Let me know when we've got confirmation that some folks will help out, and we'll get the ball rolling — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: Good to hear! I posted a note on WT:DYK so hopefully that will get some responses. If it's ignored for a few days, I'll start knocking on doors...er...user talk pages. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes and MusikAnimal: I've watchlisted it. — Maile (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea to have a separate page for approved hooks is sound since it saves one from combing through T:TDYK. OTOH, I don't think creating a new process that removes such hooks from the main discussion page is a good idea. Not only would this mean that a new DYK-subpage is created without consensus on WT:DYK, it would also lead to confusion for people not familiar with this. IMHO, the bot should just copy the hooks to the approved page, not move them. Having them at two places (approved and T:TDYK) is not really a problem and once they are promoted, they will be removed from both pages anyway since the subpage is archived. Regards SoWhy 08:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: I'll let others clarify, but my impression is consensus has been reached via this RfC and the implementation discussion. Do you feel more discussion is needed? Leaving the approved nominations on T:TDYK is the precise issue, it appears. The page often exceeds the transclusion limit and nominations fail to show up at all, even though they were transcluded. Something has to be done, so they decided to move the approved nominations to a dedicated page. Documentation at all the related DYK pages should be updated, and surely folks will eventually adapt to the new system — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must have missed this. My bad. Personally, I think some more discussion is needed but I won't stand in the way if people think consensus exists. Regards SoWhy 20:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SoWhy I guessed you missed a lot. The discussion has been ongoing in spurts since last August or September, in any number of WT:DYK threads, and one at the Village Pump. The link that MusikAnimal provided, is the current one ... scroll upwards after you click, and there is a lot more discussion above the section he linked. It's not an archived thread, but has been at the top of the WT:DYK since November 1, 2016 for anybody who may have wanted to join in. — Maile (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this solution is good for now. I do still believe that there should be an obvious visual marker as to whether a nomination is approved or challenged, whether that means having a separate section for challenged hooks, or having a colored one-line banner at the beginning of each nomination. That would make it much easier for promoters and double-checkers to quickly see the status of each nomination. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: Have we rounded up some folks to help with the trial? — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: Apologies for my delay; I keep hoping my life will settle down, but it rarely does. In spite of my absence, a number of DYK regulars have been using the approved page for the last few weeks. Some have been posting comments and feedback at User talk:Wugapodes/DYKTest/Approved. I think a second stage trial, where it makes live edits on DYKN and DYKN/Approved would be a useful next step. I'm sure there will be some unforseen bugs that pop up in the transition, so if/when you give the go-ahead for that, I may delay execution just until I'm sure I can be free to hotfix things. With my prior caveat, I do think my life will begin to settle in the coming days, and I'll have more free time to spend here. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 21:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC) P.S., how do I deactivate the tag? The template page documentation isn't great...[reply]

Approved for trial (14 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. When you are ready. This is not a normal BRFA since we're changing the process of a major project, so I agree the best course is to have the bot start making edits directly to WP:TDYK and the new approved page, and patch any bugs as we go along. Because there's no simple "revert" back to the old process, it is important that you be readily available during the trial. I noticed here there were reports the bot had stop running. Is it running on Tool Labs? If so I recommend we recruit another maintainer in the event something goes awry, and be able to restart the service if needed.

At the end of the trial, just ping me and we'll review – no need to turn off the bot since others are depending on it. From there we'll extend the trial if need be until we've got the stamp of approval — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. My schedule should be settled by the end of the week, I'll know for sure by Friday but I'll tentatively plan for the trial to start Sunday. If I don't think I'll be able to follow through with that, I'll delay it and let you know. Abundance of caution will be the name of the game. In the mean time, I'll make a post on WT:DYK to let everyone there know about the impending changes and also seek an additional maintainer as I think that's a splendid idea. It is indeed run on labs so it should be easy to add an additional maintainer or two; if you have anyone you'd like to recommend (yourself included) just let me know. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 00:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder, Wugapodes, MusikAnimal, that the scheduling should be coordinated with Shubinator's DYKHousekeepingBot, which makes a table of the DYK nominations, total and approved, based on the Notifications page. I believe that he's done the necessary work to allow his bot to handle the impending bifurcation with nominations on two separate pages rather than one, but I don't know what else might be involved on his end. Also, I would very strongly recommend that at least 24 hours notice be given on the DYK talk page before the bot actually moves its first set of approved nominations (with the expected kickoff time), to minimize confusion. We'll need to update all of the various instructions and other documentation, and be ready to answer people's questions on how this will work. I did my best to set up the /Approved page with as much information as possible, but I obviously couldn't touch the Nominations page since it needs to reflect the current process up to the switchover. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Wugapodes had already given said notice at WT:DYK right after posting here, a couple of hours before I posted the request above. Thank you for doing so, and a minor trouting to me for not checking there first. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

convenience break @MusikAnimal: I'll be starting the bot tonight. I've been updating all the regulars at WT:DYK so they're aware. I'll post updates here about any important changes. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 00:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 04:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC) - The bot completed its first run. I checked the nom page and the approved page and both appear to be working as expected. I will update some documentation, review a DYK or two, and then rerun the bot. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz]
• 04:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC) - Approved a nom (after a review, obviously) and ran the bot. It failed miserably. Reset the pages and won't run until patched. Likely 30-60mins. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz]
• 05:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC) - Third run still didn't get the update quite right. BlueMoonset noticed a nom was orphaned by the bot, but it was restored and the bot did not re-remove it so I will be keeping an eye out for orphaned noms. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz]
• 06:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC) - Fourth time's the charm. Bot updated correctly, no noms seem to have been orphaned, and there were no errors. I'm going to put the bot back on its cron schedule (odd numbered hours) so it should run in ~45 mins and I'll check it then. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz]
• 07:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC) - The bot successfully completed its second update. It removed promoted hooks and did not move any newly approved noms (because none existed). I'm confident the bot is stable, and nothing should go terribly wrong in the next few hours. If something does come up, block first ask questions later. Given that, I'll be asleep for the next few hours. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz]

Week one update

It's been a week and things seem to be going well. I'm currently working to implement two new features: more detailed edit summaries and handling {{DYK checklist}} and those should be finished in the next couple days. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Wugapodes: Good to hear! Many thanks for the updates. In what way is {{DYK checklist}} being handled? Will the bot automatically fill in fields like the newness and length? Should it help, there is an API available to get the word count, using the same logic as the DYK check script [2] — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it only looks to see if the person using the template approved the hook. Essentially, it reads the text of the template and sees if the status parameter is set to "y" and if so treats it as an approval. That being said, the way it's written is pretty extensible, so it could do those things. Thanks for the link, I may try that out in the future. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 20:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

End of trial

Trial complete. @MusikAnimal: It's been 14 days so the trial is over. It seems to have been running without problems for the last ten days after the initial bug fixes, and has kept running fine since updating the edit summary and adding in the checklist handling, so I'm confident in it. Let me know your thoughts on the next steps. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: Reviewing WT:DYK I don't see any complaints except this one (permalink), which correct me if I'm wrong, is the caveat of the "one-way move" we discussed above? Have we given any more thought into making it go both ways? I see you've started WP:DYK2017 which may deal with this and other issues with the current process. Would the outcome of that mean a major reworking of the bot? — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not the "one-way" move issue, rather, as a design choice, I programmed the bot to remove closed nominations (ie, any promoted to prep or rejected). Since the goal was to limit transclusions, removing closed nominations that don't show up on the page helps achieve that. That's what the edit summary change was about: making those removals more transparent. I don't have strong feelings on it, as I think the way noms are closed should be revised anyway, so your thoughts on whether to keep that function or stop it would be welcome. I wouldn't expect WP:DYK2017 to result in any major revisions to this task; if it results in new bot things they'll likely be different tasks. The only real exceptions would be making the moves two-way and changing how nominations are closed. Both I anticipated and so shouldn't require too much reworking of the code, and the later could conceivably be done without a bot. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 20:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a discussion about having the bot remove closed noms? Judging by the discussion I mentioned above, there is some opposition. Any idea how much of a difference it makes on the transclusion count? — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

kinda? The purpose of the first proposal at WP:DYK2017 is to discuss this in a round-about way; essentially when and how we're going to deal with closed nominations in general and either keep or remove the bot's function depending on whether it's consistent with that. So relevant, but not explicit, and it's only being drafted at this point so I could see that discussion of its actually merits not being completed for a month or so. I can also start a discussion/straw poll at WT:DYK to get more explicit opinions in the short term which would be my preference over waiting and/or speculating.

As to the difference it's making in keeping transclusions down, it's probably not a big impact. It seems to be operating about 1:1--over the last 3 days (00:00 19 Feb - 23:59 21 Feb) 60 nominations have been placed on the approved page and 52 have been taken off by WugBot. Those numbers aren't very useful though because it's not like there'd be a net of +20 noms each day if the bot didn't remove the closed nominations; they have and can be managed by humans just not quickly, and there's no data from when this wasn't done since the bot has done this since the first commit. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion if it doesn't help the transclusion count that much, the bot should leave closed nominations so people don't forget to add them back when necessary. I see you just made a comment at WT:DYK so let's see if we get more input — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it helps the transclusion count at all. Currently, when a nomination is approved or rejected, the template that is substituted redoes the nomination page so it starts with a <noinclude> tag and ends with the closing tag and a comment. So in terms of the page size, transcluded closed templates have no effect. What deletion does on the Approved page is save some editor from having to manually delete the date and its associated templates once they've all been closed. (We're still doing that on the nominations page.) Right now, pulled hooks from prep have to manually readded every time; before, they only had to be readded if the date had been been manually deleted after all the hooks had been promoted or rejected. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: Any decisions made on whether to leave closed nominations? — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: Yes, I planned to remove it a few weeks ago, but I was travelling and lost my computer charger which is why I've been noticeably absent. Apologies for that. Now that my computer has returned to the land of the living, I hope to begin on that immediately and should have the changes done in the coming days. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 17:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Hi Wug, any update on this? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux and MusikAnimal: Hi all, sorry, I've been working on some tight deadlines irl and completely forgot about this. As an update, the removal of closed nominations seems to be an emergent feature that is proving hard to track down the cause of. It may well require major modifications to the code which I probably won't be able to do that for another month unfortunately. I'm going to continue looking at it to see if I can kludge a solution together in the short term, but it may be worthwhile to discuss going forward should that not work out. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 19:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} It's been a while - how's this looking? SQL^{Query me!} 03:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: Just finished with the major obligations I had irl, so I'll have time to work on this in the coming week. There wasn't an easy kludge I could find unfortunately, so no update yet. But I should have something within 7 days. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 19:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hofstadter's law claims another victim. The rewrite is largely finished but I'm running into an error with character encodings that's proving hard to track down the cause of. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 18:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: Color me confused, but is this bot currently performing the task you're seeking approval for here? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13, the bot has been doing the task since February, and was approved for it late that month: it moves nominations that have passed their review from the nominations page to the approved page. It does not move nominations back from the approved page if they should run into trouble. The question now is whether to disable the functionality that deletes a template when it has been closed on either page—either because it was been approved, rejected, or withdrawn—in case it should be reopened before having a full run on the main page as part of DYK. If the bot doesn't do it, we'll go back to removing them manually, probably when all the nominations on a date have been closed. Since I tend to do the lion's share of such removals, I'm not exactly thrilled by this impending change. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: Could you link to the approval for the still-running portion of the task? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, that was meant to ping BlueMoonset, not Wugapodes. I'm not doubting the value of the task, but I can't find any approved task supporting what the bot is currently doing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13, I had thought MusikAnimal had approved it, but looking back on this page, I don't see any such approval. I think your ping to Wugapodes is probably the right one; my concern here has been that the bot do the right thing, and I've been helping the process by conveying any issues to Wugapodes along the way. This, however, would seem to me to be outside my remit, though I naturally hope that the bot will be allowed to continue—moving nominations by hand would be an immense pain, and something I, at least, cannot take on. To lose the bot for any significant period of time would cause problems with the current DYK process. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13 and BlueMoonset: It was not approved, rather, MusikAnimal said above in approving the trial, "At the end of the trial, just ping me and we'll review – no need to turn off the bot since others are depending on it. From there we'll extend the trial if need be until we've got the stamp of approval" (diff). Following that direction, it was never turned off at the end of the trial period, though I don't think MusikAnimal ever formally extended it. The hang-up, as I understand it, is similar to what BlueMoonset said: whether the bot should be approved with or without the automatic removal of closed nominations, the problem being that there was little input on the matter. I was rather indifferent on the matter, though MusikAnimal suggested "In my opinion if it doesn't help the transclusion count that much, the bot should leave closed nominations so people don't forget to add them back when necessary" (diff). Due to some real life conflicts and the need for a code rewrite to implement that change, the process has been significantly delayed. Though the end of the removal of closed nominations is nigh, as I said above I just need to solve an encoding error in writing the page. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 18:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: Ah, no worries then. @MusikAnimal: Currently, there's an existing bot (not sure which, but I know I've encountered it in this exact scenario) that will notify editors of an incorrectly-created nomination if they have an open nomination that isn't transcluded at Template talk:Did you know. That bot will alert editors to re-add the nomination to the template list if necessary. Please verify that what I've said is still essentially correct, BlueMoonset, in case that bot has gone offline or something without me being aware of it. Assuming that's still the case, and since the community clearly doesn't care much either way given the lack of complaints over several months of running this bot, I think we can just approve this. That other bot will catch the very low rate of pulled hooks where no editor thinks to re-transclude them. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'd like to apologize for my absence at BRFA over the past few months. I probably would have approved this a while ago, but to explain: This was a very unconventional BRFA. We went as far as we could by testing things in the bot's userspace, but to be an effective trial we needed it to go live, which required asking all the people who work at DYK to adapt to the new system. Nothing went horribly wrong there, so it made sense to let it continue, rather than confuse everyone by making them revert back to the old system. In due process, I did not approve it, per se, because we were and still are waiting on new changes. Months have now gone by, with this page has more or less serving only as a venue for discussion while the bot quietly has been humming along. It's unclear how long it will take to implement the remaining tweaks (no pressure on Wugapodes!), which are noncritical and do not significantly change current functionality. So I agree with Rob in that all things considered, this BRFA is worthy of final approval. It will be up to Wugapodes et al to address the remaining concerns, but as far as I'm concerned {{BotDenied}} is not going to happen. I'm not aware of the other bot Rob speaks of, but it doesn't sound like a conflict, so  Approved. it is :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:37, 7 June 2017 (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.