Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Sambot 8


 * 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 Symbol keep vote.svg Approved.

Sambot 8
Operator: [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): PHP, using Pillar

Function Overview: Change templates on and categorise lists of ships/

Edit period(s): Once

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

Function Details:

Belhalla describes the task perfectly here:

''I'd like to see about getting a bot to process all the articles in four categories:, , , and. The number of articles in each category ranges from about 85 up to 125. The processing would be as follows: — Bellhalla (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Code: User:Sambot/Code/Ships 2.
 * '' For the three categories, , and : visit each page and replace any template transclusions of the form  with , where   is a year ending in  , like  ; and   is the specific year in the title of the page. Typically, the templates to be replaced appear in a "See also" section. Although most articles will have only one template of the   style, year articles near the turn of a decade most often have two. If any article already has the template , skip it.
 * ''Example 1: In List of ship commissionings in 1876, replace with.
 * ''Example 2: In List of ship commissionings in 1879, replace  and  with.
 * ''For the category : Perform the same template replacement as above, PLUS place the article in  with a pipe and a space (so the article will sort at the top of the category) like this:  . As above,   is the specific year in the title of the article. If any article already has the template  skip that task. If any article already has the   category, please add the pipe-and-space (" ") sortkey
 * ''Example 3: List of ship launches in 1908, replace  with ; add to   (with a pipe-and-space sortkey)

[[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 19:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
20 edits -- successful  [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 11:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks great to me. Anyone have any concerns? – Quadell (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Let's have a trial then. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've checked the edits, and they look good to me. Anyone else? – Quadell (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good from this end. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Under the duck test, if it looks like a working bot, and er... well, anyhow, approved. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:29, 17 April 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.