Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot 21


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

JJMC89 bot 21
Operator:

Time filed: 03:47, Thursday, September 10, 2020 (UTC)

Function overview: Add/remove drafts moved from mainspace

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available:
 * Tagging: After approval
 * Untagging: pywikibot's template.py

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2020 3
 * User talk:JJMC89/Archives/2020/August
 * User talk:BD2412 (permalink)

Edit period(s):
 * Tagging: Continuous Up to every 5 minutes
 * Untagging: Semi-continuous Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 1650/month (based on draftifications by month for 2020)

Namespace(s):
 * Tagging: Draft
 * Untagging: (Article)

Exclusion compliant: Yes

Function details:
 * Add to the end of articles moved to the draft namespace
 * Remove from articles

Discussion
How often is semi-continuous, for untagging? I don't deal with drafts, so just to check, do AfCs use some kind of script to move into mainspace after approval or just the move tool? If the former, does it remove these categorisations? Based on history of Draft:Amjad Khan (Writer) and convo with BD, just to double check, is this bot going to conflict with any other bots? (particularly User:BD2412bot and Danny's task 3) - I wouldn't imagine so but just checking. Finally, does this bot intend to convert manual categorisation to the templated form? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know yet. I'll set the job to run on an interval of n times per day and adjust it based on volume of edits per run and any feedback (e.g. for quicker removals). Personally, I think daily will end up being sufficient. AfC typically uses WP:AFCH, but it is not required. To my knowledge, currently, it does not remove the template. It should not conflict with any other bots. BD2412 was just doing some initial setup and using a template instead of a category avoids issues with DannyS712 bot 3. If the template is already there (for whatever reason), it won't add it again. No, it won't touch manual categories. As with all dated maintenance categories, they should not be used directly. DannyS712 bot 3 will deactivate such cases anyway. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm, this is only for pages being draftified from now on, right? I have a separate BRFA filed for pages that were draftified in the past (using your bot's report). – SD0001  (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct. It won't run on the past draftifications. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It's better to largely leave the untagging part to the AFCH gadget (which anyway untags a lot of other things) to save unnecessary bot edits. You need to make an edit request very similar to the one on User_talk:Enterprisey/afch-master.js/submissions.js (just the name of the template is different that's all). The bot can then only take care of the rare occasions when AFCH is not used for promoting the draft. – SD0001  (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur. If this is going to be "a thing" then it makes more sense to have AFCH remove the template when a reviewer moves the page. I know that some moves from draft will not involve AFCH (e.g. creator-moved) but either way it will likely save a lot of unnecessary bot edits. If someone can get the removal onto the AFCH script then I don't see any issues with going forward. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Removal is in AFCH now. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Primefac (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * [ 20 edits] I tried to use EventStreams to monitor the draftifications live, but there were connection issues due to the infrequency of moves. I switched to the logevents API. The edits themselves are fine. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Primefac (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2020 (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 Bots/Noticeboard.