Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DodoBot 4


 * 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 Symbol keep vote.svg Approved.

DodoBot 4
Operator:

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, semi-supervised

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: Yes.

Function overview: This will be a one-off run, fixing the table of singles, per this request.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Bot Request

Edit period(s): One-time run

Estimated number of pages affected: Several hundred

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: Basically, the bot will be using a simple find and replace in AWB to fulfil this bot request, replacing all instances of  with. The regular expression that will be used is this:
 * Find:
 * Replace:

Discussion
Any idea how many instances it will change?  MBisanz  talk 04:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, several hundred articles. If I had to make an estimate I would say four or five hundred, but it could be as many as seven hundred. - EdoDodo  talk 04:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 *  MBisanz  talk 05:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits are here. - EdoDodo  talk 11:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've examined the output, and it looks good. As expected, the generated charts are completely unaffected. The bot encountered tables that had mixed usage (some calls preceded by a pipe, some not) and handled them correctly.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest changing the edit summary to say "Removing unnecessary pipe before singlechart per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bot_requests&oldid=378520000#singlechart_formatting_consistency" There really isn't something wrong with the pipe, and many of the examples people copied had it. I was actually surprised it worked without it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll provide a link to this BRFA for the rest of the runs, so the edit summary will be like this:
 * Would that edit summary be fine with everyone? I prefer providing a wikilink than an external link, and this BRFA should explain why it is being done, as well as show that the bot is approved. - EdoDodo  talk 16:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 *  MBisanz  talk 03:38, 16 August 2010 (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.
 * 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.