Template talk:Auto archiving

From Wikivoyage
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Ikan Kekek in topic Automatic archiving
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Automatic archiving[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I'm wondering if there is interest in having a bot for archiving discussion pages that need archiving constantly (such as this Pub). I have a bot to do that, which is an unmodified copy of archivebot.py of Pywikibot. To get a sense of how it will look like, please see the bot's edits on Meta. Would you like to have it? It would take almost no effort for me to add English Wikivoyage, if there is interest. Whym (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

How would a bot know which talk page to sweep discussions to? Powers (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
It only recognizes systematically named subpages such as Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/2014 and Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub/Archive/4. Edits like [1] and [2] can be automated, while [3] and [4] would still have to be done manually. I believe both could co-exist and could save the time for the maintenance overall. Whym (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'd have to hear more about how the co-existence workflow would work. Powers (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
The concern I would have is just that if there is minimal effort (perhaps 'one click'?) required for automatic archiving then it will probably result in most discussions being archived in the standard location.
If you want to manually archive a discussion in the standard location then anyway it isn't much effort presently. Most effort is around finding an appropriate article to file each discussion under. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
I would agree that the Pub may not be the best page for auto-archiving, but what about using a bot on pages where we do archive to a sub-page? The following jump to mind:
Most of the time discussions are properly archived on those pages, but it wouldn't hurt to have a bot that archives old discussions if we forget to do so, and I would think that setting a bot up for these pages probably wouldn't be controversial. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Seems reasonable, except perhaps for Star noms. Powers (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the suggestions. Maybe Wikivoyage:Tourist Office, too? Whym (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
A bot sweeping the Tourist Office could be useful. In order to function properly, it'd have to check two things, though: when there hasn't been any discussion for 14 days in a thread it should be swept. Moreover threads should be swept to the proper archive page, which is defined as the month when the thread was started. In almost half of the cases this is the month before - in extreme cases it might even be two months back. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC), frequent Tourist Office sweeper.Reply
I would say 2 weeks might be too short. Probably at least a month. Andrewssi2 (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Powers, regarding the workflow, here is what I thought: when someone is quicker than the bot, then there will be no problem, and when the bot is quicker than a potential sweeper, then someone might have to look at the subpage to consider sweeping the archived thread to somewhere else - still, no more effort than currently required will be required, IMO. I get Andrewssi2's point above on possible tendency towards not bothering to find a more appropriate place, though. Whym (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
I don't support automatically archiving discussions less than a month old, because I think there will be too many unhelpful instances of archiving, in that case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
When a page is configured to have a 31-day threshold, no thread commented a month ago or later would be archived by archivebot.py. The configuration would also imply that no thread less than a month old would be archived. Whym (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
ϒpsilon: 1) Duration of inactivity before archiving can be set to one month or anything else, by specifying it in the marker template, as explained in mw:Manual:Pywikibot/archivebot.py/setup. 2) Choosing the archive page based on the month when the thread was started - this option is not available in archivebot.py. Would it be acceptable if the timestamp of the last comment in the thread decides the subpage? Whym (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
I have another question, can the bot create new archive pages for new months? Otherwise they need to be created manually, and if this is the case I don't think there is very much left for the bot to do.
Also, in the Tourist Office the asker wants an answer to a specific question unlike for example talk pages or the pub where policies, district divisions and whatnot are developed. IMO we shouldn't keep the threads in the Tourist Office longer than necessary. Now they are archived after two weeks of inactivity, and I don't think that's too short time at all - this period could even be shortened. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
The bot creates new archive pages when they are needed. [5] m:Template:Archive box auto ensures links to newly created pages to be shown on the parent page. (it doesn't support some types of pages such as "/2014-Q1", though.) Whym (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
I've fixed the links I gave (which didn't work). Sorry for the confusion. Whym (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
So, let's implement the archiving bot for the Tourist Office and see if it works right. ϒpsilon (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
I have set it up for the Tourist Office and scheduled a daily check. I consider it a trial and haven't requested a bot flag yet. Note that Wikivoyage:Tourist Office#Is Suriname safe to travel? will be archived into the October page, not September. I hope this is an acceptable change, but if you disagree I can try implementing the original rule for the Tourist Office mentioned above by ϒpsilon. Whym (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
FYI: Wikivoyage:Script nominations#‎ArchiverBot. Whym (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Your participation is needed in that thread, if you support the bot. Statements of support in this thread, for some reason, aren't being counted there. Neither would statements of opposition made here be counted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply