Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EarwigBot 15

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

Approved.

EarwigBot 15

Operator: The Earwig (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, unsupervised

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: from tools:~earwig/earwigbot: infoboxcriminalbot_run.py

Function overview: The bot replaces the deprecated parameters |penalty= and |status= in transclusions of {{Infobox criminal}} with |conviction_penalty= and |conviction_status=, respectively.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 35#Infobox criminal parameter renames and Template talk:Infobox criminal#Status

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: ~975

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y

Function details: The bot goes through all transclusions of {{Infobox criminal}}. For each transclusion, if the template uses either |penalty= or |status=, the bot will replace it with |conviction_penalty= or |conviction_status=. The penalty and status parameters are now deprecated per the discussion at Template talk:Infobox criminal#Status; while this will not change how the page looks in the end, it will make the template clearer and more consistent with similar templates. — The Earwig ^(talk) 03:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Assuming there is no objection, I will approve the bot for trial in 7 days. harej 03:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the template is backwards compatible, is there a compelling reason to do this simply to update the parameter? Perhaps it should be done in conjunction with general fixes or typo fixing, for example. –xeno^talk 15:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Template talk:Infobox criminal#Status, I'm pretty sure that the plan is to remove the backwards compatibility once the bot has been run. The reason for this task is to make the template easier to understand, as I said above, and perhaps allow us to add a different |status= parameter in the future like other biographical infoboxes have. If we do not change this now, it will never be fully corrected; keeping this parameter in use anywhere causes other users who to copy existing templates for new articles to use the old parameter instead of the new one, which is simply not good. I can't do genfixes (not using AWB), but I can use part of cosmetic_changes.py if you wish, although I would prefer not to. If it was possible to run a something along with it, I might; do you have any other ideas? — The Earwig ^(talk) 16:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, I suppose. My thought was that someone could make an initial manual run through doing typo fixes and gen fixes. –xeno^talk 16:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; |Status= is use differently in other, similar, biographical templates, to mean different things, such as martial status. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If status is to be repurposed then that is a horse of a different colour and I withdraw my objection. –xeno^talk 13:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seven days have passed. May we proceed? also, plesae see Infobox jornalist parameter rename, a similar request. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm a little tired of waiting. {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Wake up, my fellow BAG members! — The Earwig ^(talk) 01:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. (50 edits) harej 02:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Trial complete. [1] — The Earwig ^(talk) 05:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No oppositions

Approved.

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.