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 Denied.

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

Time filed: 17:31, Monday, January 20, 2020 (UTC)

Function overview: The bot is going to substitute transclusions of Template:Click as per a deletion discussion.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_12#Template:Click

Edit period(s): One-time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 10,253

Namespace(s): All namespaces

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Function details: The bot is simply going to substitute transclusions before deleting Template:Click. This will be a one-time run. I am not sure if any other modifications need to be made after substituting the template but I think that substituting it should be sufficient before deleting because the result after substituting will only be file syntax. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

• Already put user:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster on the task. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Trialpears: Does that mean that I have to withdraw this straight away? Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah it should be done in a few hours. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Trialpears: Please stop using TemplateSubster for TfDs - "Note that Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell has specialized bots that do template substitutions and removals with a more informative edit summary. That process should be preferred to AnomieBOT's TemplateSubster when dealing with WP:TFD outcomes." DannyS712 (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  DannyS712, sure although I'm quite hesitant to do so since AnomieBOT is by far the fastest and simplest way to get something substituted. To use one of the TfD bots I would have to contact the operator to get them to do the bot run which isn't a very good use of time for me or the operator if the same thing can be accomplished in one quick edit. Even if I get my own TfD bot it will still require some effort, especially if it is a lot of transclusions taking many hours to remove, where I have to put it on toolforge or something to let it run overnight which I only can do from my home computer which is only responsible for a small proportion of my edits. It is very easy to see why the template was substituted by looking at the template page which will either have an obvious "Being deleted" tag or have a deletion reason linking to the TfD discussion and I have recently asked Anomie if they can add a edit summary option to the bot in response to a not as obvious removal. There are also many people who do not have a problem with using AnomieBOT this way as can be seen at your own DannyS712 bot 46 BRFA and by approving edit requests for this purpose at User talk:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Trialpears: and then see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 47 - the bot's instructions say not to use it for TfDs. I'll look into moving mine to cron and on on-wiki command page rather than awb each time, but until then, feel free to ping me (I spend way too much time online :) )--DannyS712 (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  DannyS712, thanks! That would be greatly appreciated! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Trialpears: Well, click is for subst, not orphan, so not within my authorization DannyS712 (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. The only extant transclusions are actually buried in templates and will need to be manually updated. Primefac (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2020 (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.