Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/LivingBot 14

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.

LivingBot 14

Operator: Jarry1250 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 17:17, Friday December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Probably AWB

Source code available: AWB + simple regexes

Function overview: Tweaks to the parameters of Template:Infobox UK school, which has recently been changed.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Template talk:Infobox UK school#URNs and Ofsted

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: around 2000

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y (Standard AWB)

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

Function details: The actual thing it will be doing (these reflect changes to the template programming):

if |ofsted= is set but |urn= isn't, and |ofsted is a legitimate URN (six digit number, generous regex for formatting tastes) copy the value from |ofsted= to |urn= (including fixing it up) and set |ofsted=yes.
if |ofsted= and |urn= are both set to the same value, set |ofsted=yes.

Other useful stuff it can be doing whilst there:

Template redirects correction;
Template categorisation correction; parameter capitalisation correction.
Parameter renaming corrected/updating (dcsfurn => urn; dcsfno => dfeno).
(More to follow, I suspect, when they come into my head.)

Discussion

I suggested this, and obviously approve. Some other corrections of field names:

enrolment, Students, students -> enrollment
Town, town, village -> city
headteacher, Headteacher -> head
sex -> gender
colour -> colours

Kanguole 11:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is a little bit difficult to get my head around, but I think I now understand what's going on. Presumably the changes to capitalisation/redirect bypassing would only be made to the infobox template, and only when the "main" edit (switching Ofsted and URN) is being made? Also, presumably the bot will cope if the URN parameter is non-existent and if it's present but the value is empty? As to the field name changes mentioned above, I'm not sure what the benefit of this would be, are these errors particularly common? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the capitalisation changes were only to be applied to parameter names, which would change a non-working entry to a working one, but on checking through the actual uses there don't seem to be any instances of this error. The other corrections I listed would be a total of 68 individual changes. As the proposed run is a one-off, I suggested including them, but they could be done by hand. Kanguole 10:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in answer to your (first) question. The other things were just nice things to do, I don't know if any of them would in practice be done or not (but the script for parameter standardisation hardly takes any time to write, so better to have approval than not). Just trying to get as much done in one edit as possible. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 12:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. (fixes that aren't visual shouldn't be made alone) Seems a straight-forward maintenance of parameters. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Best part of 50 edits performed; the only problematic edits were the first two, with errors of scope that have now been fixed (as you can see from the successive edits). - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 15:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Mr.Z-man 04:29, 2 January 2011 (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.