Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 29

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Approved.

AnomieBOT 29

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: Anomie⚔

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic, unsupervised

Programming Language(s): Perl

Function Overview: Remove the deprecated external link parameters from infoboxes, while adding the links those parameters formerly generated to the article's External links section.

Edit period(s): As needed.

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

Function Details: When consensus exists for deprecating external link parameters from an infobox, the bot will go through all transclusions of the infobox, remove the external link parameters, and add the corresponding external link or external link template to the article's External links section if that section does not already contain the corresponding link. An External links section will be created if necessary. Any issues encountered will be logged. Each page will only be processed once (a local database holds the pageids of all successfully-processed pages).

Discussion

This is the same code as for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 24 and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 25; now the people at {{Infobox Television film}} want the same thing done, and for good measure I'm requesting permission to run the same code for other infoboxen if this situation comes up again. Anomie⚔ 01:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Pity I'm slightly too close to trial it myself (better wait five minutes until Quadell turns up). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 20:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

  Trial complete. [1] Anomie⚔ 22:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 Approved. Those edits sure do look good. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.