Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 18
Latest comment: 5 years ago by DannyS712 in topic Extension
Extension edit
@TheSandDoctor and SQL: I'd like to extend this task to also remove empty sections from the pages. For example, section 1 at Special:Permalink/890070807 is blank and can be removed. I would do this by adding another regex, replacing == Section \d* ==\n*(== Section \d* ==) with $1. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- To test the regex, I put it into AWB - it worked perfectly. See Special:Diff/890251990. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor and SQL: don't know if you saw this ^^^ --DannyS712 (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- DannyS712, This should be fine. This is still just affecting the 40 or so pages that the original task is touching, right? SQLQuery me! 00:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- @SQL: yes. I'll report back if there are any errors --DannyS712 (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- @SQL: I implemented it, and it worked fine in js too - Special:Diff/891446872! --DannyS712 (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- I am inclined to approve as this appears to be a minor change with benefit which has been proven functional by the above diff. Additionally, it is too small to be the subject of its own request. Unless @SQL: objects or beats me to it, the approval of the requested amendment shall take place around 00:00 UTC (5pm PDT / 8pm EDT). @DannyS712: this delay is allowing approximately a 24 hour window for SQL (or anyone else) to raise any objections/concerns etc as I understand none of us are around 24/7. If none are raised and/or SQL approves before the window, then the approval could take place faster. If anyone has any questions, please post them here and ping. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor: oh, umm, I thought that SQL's comment above was the approval (
This should be fine
). The first diff above was me with AWB, the second was the bot, which I already updated to include this feature? Should I revert that? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)- @DannyS712: I was thinking post-edit comments, but you're probably right given that it appeared to work fine. SQL can go ahead and revert me if they disagree, but I may as well approve it now. You'll have approval within the next couple minutes. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- @SQL and DannyS712:
Approved. Special:Diff/891478142. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- @SQL and DannyS712:
- @DannyS712: I was thinking post-edit comments, but you're probably right given that it appeared to work fine. SQL can go ahead and revert me if they disagree, but I may as well approve it now. You'll have approval within the next couple minutes. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor: oh, umm, I thought that SQL's comment above was the approval (
- I am inclined to approve as this appears to be a minor change with benefit which has been proven functional by the above diff. Additionally, it is too small to be the subject of its own request. Unless @SQL: objects or beats me to it, the approval of the requested amendment shall take place around 00:00 UTC (5pm PDT / 8pm EDT). @DannyS712: this delay is allowing approximately a 24 hour window for SQL (or anyone else) to raise any objections/concerns etc as I understand none of us are around 24/7. If none are raised and/or SQL approves before the window, then the approval could take place faster. If anyone has any questions, please post them here and ping. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- DannyS712, This should be fine. This is still just affecting the 40 or so pages that the original task is touching, right? SQLQuery me! 00:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
