Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 4

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.

BU RoBOT 4

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

Time filed: 22:50, Thursday, September 10, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Merge {{Infobox MLB player}} into {{Infobox baseball biography}}

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_17#Template:Infobox_MLB_player

Edit period(s): One-time run

Estimated number of pages affected: Up to 19,223

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: This task will complete the merge of {{Infobox MLB player}} into {{Infobox baseball biography}} that has been pending since early 2014. All parameter names in "Infobox MLB player" are already identical to those in "Infobox baseball biography", but the latter requires additional parameters to specify which league the player's statistics and other info come from. This task will add those parameters where needed and skip articles where they aren't by utilizing AWB's filter for cosmetic-only changes. The following diff shows all additional parameters that may be added: [1].

Discussion

Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — Earwig ^talk 04:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. The edits are here. The only thing I noticed that was odd had nothing to do with the edits themselves. For some reason, on the usual 10 second bot timer, AWB is only getting through 3-4 of these per second instead of the usual close to 6. This isn't a complicated task and the pages aren't that large, so I wonder why it's taking so long to process and save them. Not really a big deal, although if anyone knows what might be going on with that, I'd be interested to know. ~ Rob^Talk 05:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this edit by Yankees10 in which s/he removed |statleague=. Would it be better to not add this? Leaving it out makes the {{Infobox baseball biography}} look closer to how {{Infobox MLB player}} did. — Earwig ^talk 17:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can leave it out, although that has traditionally not been how {{Infobox baseball biography}} has been used. I'm hesitant to carve out an exception to the league parameters in a header, since if any of the players currently using {{Infobox baseball biography}} later go to other leagues, the absence would likely cause confusion. I'm currently having a discussion with Yankees10 on my talk page about how best to present this information; it may be best to wait a few days to let us iron out the details. While I don't think it's a problem, he or she was not a fan of the presentation of the league name in the debut/final appearance areas when only one league is present. I've made a mock-up of moving that information to the header if only one debut/final appearance is provided, which will hopefully be acceptable to all parties. All changes will be made template side. ~ Rob^Talk 18:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; let's wait a bit until the details are ironed out. Poke me when you're ready to move forward with this. — Earwig ^talk 23:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Earwig: I'll let you judge whether the following discussion is complete enough. This was talked over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 40#Template merger where people expressed that they preferred leagues to be listed in the headers. I added this functionality to the template (also adding a delink template to the parameter if appearing in the header, due to WP:COLOR concerns). I tried for an affirmative "Yes, this is what we were looking for", but have gotten no response for a couple of days. The change was exactly what they discussed, though, so I think we should be all set. The bot itself has not changed at all, only the template, so no extended trial should be needed. I tested the template changes in the sandbox/testcases before implementing and it works fine. ~ Rob^Talk 03:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. There's still the "Career statistics" vs. "MLB statistics" difference. What about that? — Earwig ^talk 01:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove that parameter from the conversion. I personally think it's preferable to include it, but my opinion isn't strong enough to bother with a round of consensus seeking for the change. Not adding that parameter maintains the status quo. ~ Rob^Talk 04:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the consensus discussion at WikiProject Baseball supported league names in the headers of debut and final appearance even when only one league is present. It is consistent with that consensus to implement the same for career statistics. I'll post a message and see if anyone objects, but I think the consensus we already have for the league name in other headers should be applied to this one as well. Otherwise, we're being inconsistent. ~ Rob^Talk 04:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that this is how the template's been used in the past, such as in Dan Black (baseball). ~ Rob^Talk 04:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I'll give people a few days to respond. — Earwig ^talk 04:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to deny it, considering consistency and precedent. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 05:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting the editor who originally removed the parameter in the edit The Earwig pointed out has now supported its addition in the discussion. No opposition as of yet. ~ Rob^Talk 01:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's keep the bot as-is and add that parameter. Approved. — Earwig ^talk 18:50, 16 September 2015 (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.