Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 8
- 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.
Operator: Primefac (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 16:33, Thursday, January 12, 2017 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: AWB
Function overview: Add parameter to template post-TFD merger
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): TFD
Edit period(s): One time run
Estimated number of pages affected: 1706
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): yes
Function details: {{c.}} was originally used as a "no-link" variant of {{circa}}, but a TFD end in a result of merge. Merge is complete, and all that is left is to turn {{c.}} into a redirect. In order for the no-link option to be preserved post-redirect, I need to add |lk=no to all transclusions using \{\{c. *?\| → {{c.|lk=no|
Discussion
edit- Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. please report back trial results. — xaosflux Talk 18:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Trial complete. Results. Primefac (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I checked a handful of the bot's edits, and they look fine to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Since you're going in with a bot anyway, would it make sense to replace the old template name, "c.", with the new template name, "circa", while you're in the article making changes? I know that redirects are cheap and we don't just change redirects to their targets for no reason, but it seems like this might be a valid exception. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I suppose I could do that. Easy enough to modify the search params. Out of curiosity, why would you say this is an exception? Primefac (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Because "c." is jargony and opaque if you've never seen it before, whereas "circa" is nearly a real English word that you could do a web search for and find out what it means. This is not a hill I would be willing to die on; just a suggestion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nah, it makes sense; I have similar feelings about {{b.}}. I'll incorporate the change. Primefac (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Because "c." is jargony and opaque if you've never seen it before, whereas "circa" is nearly a real English word that you could do a web search for and find out what it means. This is not a hill I would be willing to die on; just a suggestion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I suppose I could do that. Easy enough to modify the search params. Out of curiosity, why would you say this is an exception? Primefac (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Per the above (and for posterity), the new regex is
\{\{c\. *?(\|)?→{{circa|lk=no$1. Primefac (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Approved. Task approved. — xaosflux Talk 22:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- 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.