Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Signpost Book Bot 2

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.

Signpost Book Bot 2 edit

Operator: FinalRapture (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: Code

Function overview: Fix up older versions of Wikipedia Signpost articles

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

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: Upwards of 1000

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: Per the bot request older versions of Signpost articles have code that cause problems when used in books. To fix that the bot will:

Replace

<noinclude>[[Image:WikipediaSignpostVertical.svg|right|The Wikipedia Signpost]]</noinclude>

With

<noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Long-image}}</noinclude>

Add <noinclude> if not present around Also this week on bottom if present
Wrap Also this week content with {{hide in print}}

Discussion edit

Please advertise your plans at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost Josh Parris 02:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Done. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable.--ragesoss (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is probably a very good thing - although it's worth raising the idea that the old templates are just switched out for the newer ones entirely. We would lose the old layout but would be able to do updates to the templates in future without bot runs. — Pretzels^Hii! 03:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, will that break anything? Josh Parris 03:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to a generic solution seems good. Rich Farmbrough, 15:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Can we please move this along? FinalRapture - † ☪ 17:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Looks fine. MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 6 June 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.