Hello. I noticed your bot converting draft cats to links, which is much better than deleting them; so thanks for that task. May I ask you to go one step further, and instead of converting it to links, embed the categories in template {{Draft categories}} instead? The effect will be that the categories will be shown at the foot of the Draft page, without populating the categories, and when the draft is released, they will immediately populate the correct categories with no further intervention.
An example of a mainspace article which uses it is Tinio Brigade; they evidently forgot to remove the template, but that's what's so good about it, because it doesn't matter if they remove it or not, as categorization will work correctly either way, whereas if you forget to remove the colons from the links, they will not work correctly.
Yes it's the AFC Helper Script - it's important as it's the main tool reviewers use to process these submissions. If it wasn't supported by the script, we risk reviewers not cleaning the template up when approving.
Understood, thanks. Imho, since it’s only a draft, only visible in the wikicode and not on the rendered page, it’s worth it, as ugly wikicode in exchange for saving countless hours of editor time is a good tradeoff. But let’s think some more about it and see what other opinions might be forthcoming from others. Mathglot (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DannyS712, Not sure what flavor of regex you are using, but what about this via perl:
# Match one or more contiguous category lines
my $pattern = qr/^(?:\[\[Category:[^]]+\]\]\n?)+$/m;
# Replacement pattern to embed in Draft categories template
$text =~ s/($pattern)/{{Draft categories |\n$1}}/s;
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Pinging User:DannyS712. The categories were already enclosed with {{draftcat}}. Looking at line 77, you're using the regex {{Draft categories\|[^{}]+}}, but that doesn't match the redirect this user is using, and you might want to consider this for the future.
@Geraldo Perez I don't log in with the bot account manually and wasn't pinged on the reports above so I didn't know about it - in the future if you just let me know on my talk page (or with a ping like I just got) I can fix this. I didn't "ignore" the report, just didn't see it --DannyS712 (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 thanks, but the bot is operating as expected - the redirect shouldn't have been created in the first place. I think this is enough of an edge case that it is unlikely to be a problem, since redirects to drafts are quickly deleted by patrolling admins --DannyS712 (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirects to drafts are quickly deleted by patrolling admins. This is true if the relevant speedy deletion tags are added. I did that for this redirect, and not the editor who moved the article to draftspace. The problem is that most NPP scripts and reports only care about unreviewed redirects (and articles) and a report just happened to catch this redirect before your bot reviewed it. Anyway, if this is hard to code for, then you should assign it a low priority. If you do get other editors/reviewers complaining about stuff like this, then you can reconsider that priority. Happy editing! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]