Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 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

DannyS712 bot 19
Operator:

Time filed: 07:23, Tuesday, March 19, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Removal of former infobox parameter to clear out Category:Pages using infobox cricketer with unknown parameters

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:BOTREQ

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: <7000

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: Replace instances of  with a blank string, since the parameter was removed.

Discussion
If you're going to edit some infoboxes, feel free to look at User:Headbomb/sandbox to add some additional fixes while you're at it. Completely optional though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do have AWB regex find-and-replace rules for the proposed logic? I'd be happy to try to add the additional fixes, but I'm not sure I can code them myself. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope! None whatsover! Many of those are probably hard to AWB-ize, but I figured people more clever than I am exist, so I thought I'd mention it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then for now, I'd prefer to run this task without extra rules - I think its pretty straightforward, and can just run overnight without supervision - if I added those rules, I'd want to supervise some of each rule's edits first. Sorry, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * see 50 contribs at - I didn't see any errors --DannyS712 (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * would you be willing to run this with genfixes? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * sure --DannyS712 (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * - see - I didn't see any errors --DannyS712 (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * One question I didn't see addressed in the original request is whether or not deliveries should be upgraded to deliveries1 or similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the numbered deliveries parameters have a use, and are used to display numerical data. The previous usage of the (unnumbered) deliveries parameter was to describe what scale is being used for the numeric data. Spike &#39;em (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then, . Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:38, 21 March 2019 (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.