Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 27


 * 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

DannyS712 bot 27
Operator:

Time filed: 07:08, Friday, April 12, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Javasrcipt

Source code available: Yes, once written

Function overview: Remove categories from drafts, per WP:DRAFTNOCAT

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 3, Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 11

Edit period(s): Likely weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: Probably around 250 per run, though the first will be higher

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: Currently, task 3 allows me to remove categories from AfC submissions, and task 11 allows me to remove categories from other userspace pages that are categorized with articles in polluted categories. I'd like to extend this functionality to also allow removing categories from drafts. query/34864 can be used to retrieve a list of "polluted" categories (categories with drafts in them that are not meant to hold drafts), and I would paste this into a page on enwiki and then the bot would go through each category and remove drafts automatically. I haven't written the source code yet, but the functionality would be most similar to that of task 11 (polluted categories with user pages), except without the checks for root user pages.

Discussion

 * — xaosflux  Talk 15:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 40 edits made ( search for Task 27 if needed, because there are a few from task 3 listed too.) I looked through all of the edits, and didn't find any errors. Code located at User:DannyS712 test/Draft cleaner bot.js. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * just to be clear as to the scope, this type of removal should only be removing pages from "content categories" - correct? — xaosflux  Talk 15:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, it should only be removing categories that are defined in the source of the draft (not those that arise from infobox error, etc).) Is that what you mean? DannyS712 (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * no. The text-source of the categories shouldn't be the discriminator - the type of category should be. If there is an approriate manual non-content category it shouldn't be removed either. While these are normally provided via templates, should the template have been subst'd or the non-content category have been manually added by an editor it shouldn't be removed either (just as you wouldn't remove it when manually editing the page). —  xaosflux  Talk 15:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * okay, I can whitelist any specific categories I come across that shouldn't be removed. I haven't seen any yet, but I'll keep an eye out. But, if a template is substituted, the page shouldn't be categorized as a template, so I feel that linking that category too is a benefit. --DannyS712 (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * BAGAssistanceNeeded - its been a week since the trial finished, any updates? Courtesy ping to . Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * task approved., as for categories to whitelist - perhaps any containing "wikipedia"? — xaosflux  Talk 23:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.