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: Peter Karlsen (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia

Function overview: changes all transclusions of ((PD-old)) or ((pd-old)) to ((PD-old-100))

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Simple_task.

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 11,000

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): yes, native to pywikipedia

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

Function details: from the bot request by Mechamind90:

When an image is tagged with ((PD-old-70)) or ((PD-old-100)) on both English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons, the Wikipedia templates are each practically identical to their Commons counterpart. However, when an image is just tagged with ((PD-old)), it means 100 on Wikipedia but 70 on the Commons. Perhaps on Wikipedia this can be resolved, since it's probably a hassle for Commons users to replace 70-year with 100-year

when public domain images are copied from Wikipedia to Commons, which is a frequent practice for all free-content images that are initially uploaded locally. Therefore, every transclusion of ((PD-old)) or ((pd-old)) on an image will be converted to ((PD-old-100)). (((PD-old-100)), presently a redirect to ((PD-old)), will become a high-risk template as a result, and should be fully protected.)

Discussion[edit]

It might be better to go the full TfD route, having ((PD-old)) be renamed to ((PD-old-100)) and then delete the redirect once it is orphaned. That would certainly solve the ambiguity problem. And then you could take care of it with KarlsenBot 4 ;) Anomie⚔ 00:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users may prefer the convenience of being able to use the template through the ((PD-old)) or ((pd-old)) syntaxes to which they are accustomed, without having such invocations suddenly produce red links. The 100 year template is by far the most commonly used at 11,143 transclusions, while ((PD-old-70)) only has 854. I'd rather run an ongoing bot task than make life more difficult for a large number of editors. Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This situation differs from common template mergers at TFD, where the source template being deleted, instead of redirected to the target, probably has fewer than 1,000 uses. My estimate of up to 5,000 edits per day for task 4 is based on those rare instances in which somewhat heavily used but "bad" templates are simply removed altogether. Peter Karlsen (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Approved for trial (31 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Anomie⚔ 03:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. [1] is a permanent link to the edits. Peter Karlsen (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Anomie⚔ 22:11, 27 October 2010 (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.