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.

Operator: BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 02:37, Saturday, March 19, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

\|\s*id(\d?) --> |work$1

if "IMSLP2" is contained within the template

Function overview: Replacing (({id))} ... (({id5))} with (({work))} ... (({work5))} to complete a merge of ((IMSLP2)) into ((IMSLP)).

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_4#Template:IMSLP2

Edit period(s): One-time run

Estimated number of pages affected: Up to 2,401

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: (({id))} currently overlaps between the two templates but is used for two different purposes, so a bot is needed to replace (({id))} with the correct parameter for ((IMSLP)), which is (({work))}. We can then redirect ((IMSLP2)) to ((IMSLP)) to complete the merge. This bot task will use only AWB template parameter rules, and it's trivial compared to past tasks, so I'm hoping this can be speedily approved. Thanks!

• Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. --slakr^\ talk / 03:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trial complete. Most recent 50 edits in Special:Contributions/BU RoBOT. Before running this, I realized id was generic enough that it's bound to run into problems with replacing parameters in the wrong template, so I swapped over to regex, which I've now posted above. No errors. ~ Rob^Talk 04:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. I dunno if the syntaxes are 100% the same, but I'd be happier if we also just swapped ((IMSLP2)) to ((IMSLP)) at the same time. That said, it's not that huge of a deal; the total count is fairly low if it has to be revisited, and we can just redirect, as mentioned. --slakr^\ talk / 03:15, 29 March 2016 (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.