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: EdoDodo (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, semi-supervised

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: Yes.

Function overview: This will be a one-off run, fixing the table of singles, per this request.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Bot Request

Edit period(s): One-time run

Estimated number of pages affected: Several hundred

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: Basically, the bot will be using a simple find and replace in AWB to fulfil this bot request, replacing all instances of |((singlechart with ((singlechart. The regular expression that will be used is this:

• Find: \|[ ]*\{\{[ ]*singlechart[ ]*(\||\}\})
• Replace: ((singlechart$1

Any idea how many instances it will change? MBisanz ^talk 04:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, several hundred articles. If I had to make an estimate I would say four or five hundred, but it could be as many as seven hundred. - EdoDodo ^talk 04:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 05:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Edits are here. - EdoDodo ^talk 11:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've examined the output, and it looks good. As expected, the generated charts are completely unaffected. The bot encountered tables that had mixed usage (some calls preceded by a pipe, some not) and handled them correctly.—Kww(talk) 14:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest changing the edit summary to say "Removing unnecessary pipe before ((singlechart)) per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bot_requests&oldid=378520000#singlechart_formatting_consistency" There really isn't something wrong with the pipe, and many of the examples people copied had it. I was actually surprised it worked without it.—Kww(talk) 14:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll provide a link to this BRFA for the rest of the runs, so the edit summary will be like this:

(Bot) Removing unnecessary pipe before ((singlechart))

Would that edit summary be fine with everyone? I prefer providing a wikilink than an external link, and this BRFA should explain why it is being done, as well as show that the bot is approved. - EdoDodo ^talk 16:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me.—Kww(talk) 17:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. MBisanz ^talk 03:38, 16 August 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.