Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mdann52 bot 9

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.

Mdann52 bot 9

Operator: Mdann52 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 08:05, Tuesday, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Manual/supervised (for more simple cases)

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: standard AWB find and replace, I can supply the code I'm using if needed

Function overview: Merging templates per consensus at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 13#Template:Connected contributor. As the two templates have conflicting parameters, I want to go through and unify these before carrying out the full merge, and merge any duplicate templates together

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Consensus for merge at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 13#Template:Connected contributor

Edit period(s):

Estimated number of pages affected: Around 6000 talk page headers

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No, mainly manual, so no need, as I can manually skip if needed

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

Function details: Connected Contributor and Connected contributor multi have similar functions, but achieve them in different ways. While I could code the templates in such a way it would accept the old parameters, going through and merging multiple template use and unifying the templates seems easier than doing a straight code merge. I'm requesting a BRFA due to the number of pages affected.

Discussion

Have the templates been merged? {{Connected contributor multi}} hasn't got |banned= or |alt1-4=. I'd also be opposed to using the "multi" suffix. Alakzi (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently testing this - alt1-4 looks like they can be used to list alternate usernames, so I intend to migrate this to user-X on the multi template. I'm going to move this across to the non-multi template at the same time - However, for obvious reasons, I'm testing the changes on the multi template for now, as it is closer to what the final one will look like. Usually, I find BRFA's take a few days to go through, so I prefer to have it running while I'm putting on the finishing touches, so I can get going ASAP. Mdann52 (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: So have you solidified what's going to be swapped for what? --slakr^\ talk / 03:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the basic replace is going to be adding U1 before all the parameters for the first box, U2 for the second etc. I'm going to finish off the rest shortly, so it should now be fully comparable (for one at least) in the sandbox. Mdann52 (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. when you're ready (as a sanity check). --slakr^\ talk / 00:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. no major issues, just a few teathing issues with strange syntax. Hopefully I've fixed these, and because I'm supervising this, these shouldn't present us an issue while I do this. Mdann52 (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: I couldn't help but notice a currently-broken template (both the name and, additionally, User11 is invalid as a parameter on the template) as one of the latest contribs. --slakr^\ talk / 23:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Slakr: This was caused by me being an idiot with regex ( I knew it had happened, I just never saved the fix....) I updated the code shortly after, and the rest should be fine. Mdann52 (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Over 7 days with no further comment, can someone else take a look at this please? Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Looks good. — Earwig ^talk 02:43, 10 September 2015 (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.