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.
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[edit]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- {{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.