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: Anomie⚔

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, unsupervised

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/ACNClerk.pm

Function overview: Update crosslinks on WP:ACN and WT:ACN when content is archived.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 3#ACNClerk

Edit period(s): a few times a day

Estimated number of pages affected: 2, plus their archives

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes

Function details: Announcements posted at WP:AC/N have a link to discussion at WT:AC/N, and those discussions have a link back to the announcement at WP:AC/N. It has been requested that AnomieBOT update these links as their targets are archived.

Discussion[edit]

Seems straight-forward. Approved for trial (1 week). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I don't know how often those discussion need archiving, so do >1 week if you need more edits. (Also I would say exclusion compliance is n/a in this case) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There will be a 20 edits to start, as it was requested that the bot process the existing archives too. While exclusion compliance isn't likely to come up, for the moment AnomieBOT will still respect ((bots)) on those pages. Anomie⚔ 19:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• So far, so good; one minor issue - the bot seems to be too literal in its looking for pairs, for example it is not updating the link here to here presumably because of spacing around headers... –xeno^talk 22:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC) (pre content follows)Reply[reply]

  The link here was updated. The link here was not updated, because there is no heading matching the target of the link "Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Second call for applications"; ditto for this one. Spacing around the headers doesn't matter in the least, because the bot just reads out the TOC. Anomie⚔ 23:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Ah, well-spotted (heading change after the original posting). What about this? (Just looking through for anything where there's still a "Discuss this" live - admittedly these are for the older business which won't affect the bot's ongoing operations). –xeno^talk 23:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Link is "Appeal to BASC by User:Wiathurhu", presumable heading in Archive 13 is "Appeal to BASC by User:Wiarthurhu". Anomie⚔ 00:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Will need to get my eyesight checked =) Since the errors are probably too diverse to program for, we'll just poke the humans to make sure they keep the headings consistent on a go-forward =) I see no barriers to approval. –xeno^talk 00:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Bot changed a "Discuss this" link for a still-live discussion to "Archived discussion" [1] (2nd one). –xeno^talk 20:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good catch. Fixed. Anomie⚔ 02:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• While minor things may need ironing out as they pop up, I see no barriers to approval. The bot has the ringing endorsement of the AC clerking team (who no longer feel guilty for not doing what the bot now does =). –xeno^talk 14:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trial complete. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Looks good to me, except for the minor issue mentioned above and already fixed. Anomie⚔ 22:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks good to me. Tim1357 ^talk 02:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Approved. Tim1357 ^talk 02:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[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.