Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 19

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.

BattyBot 19

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

Time filed: 02:04, Tuesday February 26, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Fix |expert= and |update= within {{multiple issues}}

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Template talk:Multiple issues#Problem with old-style expert parameter

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: ~750 + more for |update=

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: With the old style format of {{multiple issues}}, either |expert=Psychology|date=November 2008 or |expert=November 2008 was acceptable. With the new style format, |expert=November 2008 now displays "This article needs attention from an expert in November 2008. (November 2008)". (See Developmental psychology for an example.)

Similarly, with the new style format, |update=November 2008 now displays "Parts of this article (those related to article) are outdated'. (November 2008)". (See Murders of Adam Lloyd and Vanessa Arscott for an example.)

To fix this issue, I would like to replace |expert=mmmmm yyyy with {{expert-subject|date=mmmmm yyyy}} and |update=mmmmm yyyy with {{update|date=mmmmm yyyy}} within {{Multiple issues}}. In order to ensure that all parameters are displayed correctly, I will convert all other parameters to templates as well. (e.g. this diff and this diff). Any AWB general fixes would also be done at the same time.

Discussion

This looks trivial and uncontroversial. I don't see any glaring problems. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 06:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be worth discussing a mass conversion of all uses of this template to the new form? It would mean we could vastly simplify the code of the template. This would be a lot of cosmetic edits, though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to update as many articles as needed, as long as we can justify that they're not just cosmetic edits. Before simplifying the template, we would have to make sure that all of the major tools that add {{multiple issues}} have been updated so the standard release version no longer uses the old format (e.g. AWB). GoingBatty (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed there's a similar problem with |update=, so I have expanded the scope of this request. GoingBatty (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete., After this run is complete would it be safe to remove the old style of use of Multiple Issues from the template or are there other instances that would need to be fixed first? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are more instances. I would support a complete transition to the new style. It's really beneficial to the rendering time of the pages. Especially for those that use mixed old and new style. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. - see Special:Contributions/BattyBot for diffs. Presuming this request is approved, could you please specify whether the approval is only to fix those articles with |expert= and |update=, or to convert all instances of {{multiple issues}}? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many instances of MI need conversion? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 12:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on your definition of "need". :-) My guess is that most of the 56,000 articles containing {{multiple issues}} still use some old style parameters. GoingBatty (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When my bot ran about a month ago it should have converted many of these, *quickly looks to see if he can determine how many articles have old mi tags using a db dump* ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. but only for the initial ~750 pages (ie. the description above not fixing every instance of MI)·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:25, 6 March 2013 (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.