Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 44

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

Denied.

DannyS712 bot 44

Operator: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 20:58, Thursday, May 30, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Javascript

Source code available: User:DannyS712 test/Stub bot.js

Function overview: Purge stub templates in Category:Stub message templates needing attention that are listed as having "non-existent categories" but the categories do exist

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 14

Edit period(s): As needed

Estimated number of pages affected: 0 edits / a few per week usually

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: Currently, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 14 gives me approval to fix the |name parameter of stub templates. Since the parameter is always in the same format (the name of the template), the code for that task doesn't screen for if the template has a bad name parameter or another issue before processing it, safe with the knowledge that if the name parameter is already okay the edit will be null and no change will be saved. However, I have noticed that, when I run the bot to update stub templates with faulty name parameters, it often clears out stub templates with non-existent categories, despite not actually making an edit to them. By making an edit that results in no change, I purge the template and clear the category, and I want to make sure that this is okay, and that I can run the code even when there are no stubs with faulty name parameters. To be clear, this task would not add any new revisions, only null edits. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This is probably a good task for a bot, but don't we already have a null-edit bot? Or is Joe's Null Bot still down? -FASTILY 01:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: its been down for a while. This is not a general null-edit bot request; see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 26 for such a request that was denied because the one-time-use part was moot and Joe's bot was believed to be returning to operation soon DannyS712 (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the notice on its user page, Joe's Null Bot is running. AFAIK, it should be working correctly too. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: oh, thats good to know. But, I don't think its jobs cover this category. DannyS712 (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. I just wanted point out that it is running (for the tasks on its userpage). — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what you say above: when Task 14 is run, you run it on all the pages in the category, and sometimes an edit isn't made but since it's a null edit, cache is purged etc. Is this the correct interpretation of what you stated above and the remit for Task 14? Primefac (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: yes - for task 14 I go through all of the pages and set the |name parameter to be correct. If it is already correct there is no change, but the cache is purged. I just want to make sure that I have approval to be doing that. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, Denied. This task is essentially a duplication of Task 14; I will write an explicit note in that BRFA that null edits made by the bot in the course of its actions are allowed. Primefac (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2019 (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.