Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 60


 * 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

Yobot 60
Operator:

Time filed: 07:19, Thursday, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available:

Function overview: Clearing articles in the backlogs 'articles without infoboxes' that now have an infobox

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Bot_requests

Edit period(s): Montly

Estimated number of pages affected: Some hundreds based on my expirience from Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 17

Namespace(s): Talk

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):

Function details: The bit will search for infoboxes in articl space and then remove "needs-infobox" parameter if it finds one infobox in article space.

Discussion
This task was partly approved in the past under Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 17. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you ever encounter a situation in which infobox 1 is already present, but someone's asking for infobox 2? For example, an article on a church that's been designated a historic site: if it already has an infobox for a historic site but someone's asking for an infobox for a religious building.  Has that ever been an issue, and if so, how would the bot react?  Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nyttend Some years ago this might be a case and sometimes I had to manual convert Infobox person to something else more specific. This was one my motives to proceed with infobox standardisation so that the same parameter names work with different templates. But, from my experience, I considder this a very rare case because it's very rare that a person makes a blank request for template using the parameter without using a discussion in the talk page or change the template by themselves. I have also spotted many common errors like adding needs-paramater in all banners even to those not needed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've never seen that usage anywhere on Wikipedia. While it's theoretically possible, it's a rather unlikely scenario that can be tackled by placing  on the talk page should the situation arise.  . You can run whatever banner standardization genfixes you want on top of the task, but the primary task to be triggered to perform those. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case, I have no objections. It seems like a no-brainer housekeeping matter, as long as technical issues such as my situation aren't problems.  Nyttend (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * May be reopened at a later time. — xaosflux  Talk 00:50, 20 July 2018 (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.