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: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 07:23, Tuesday, March 19, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Removal of former infobox parameter to clear out Category:Pages using infobox cricketer with unknown parameters

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:BOTREQ#Removal of former infobox parameter

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: <7000

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: Replace instances of |deliveries=balls with a blank string, since the parameter was removed.

Discussion[edit]

If you're going to edit some infoboxes, feel free to look at User:Headbomb/sandbox#Proposed_logic to add some additional fixes while you're at it. Completely optional though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: Do have AWB regex find-and-replace rules for the proposed logic? I'd be happy to try to add the additional fixes, but I'm not sure I can code them myself. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! None whatsover! Many of those are probably hard to AWB-ize, but I figured people more clever than I am exist, so I thought I'd mention it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: Then for now, I'd prefer to run this task without extra rules - I think its pretty straightforward, and can just run overnight without supervision - if I added those rules, I'd want to supervise some of each rule's edits first. Sorry, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: Trial complete. see 50 contribs at [1] - I didn't see any errors --DannyS712 (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: would you be willing to run this with genfixes? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: sure --DannyS712 (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: Trial complete. - see [2] - I didn't see any errors --DannyS712 (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spike 'em and DannyS712:: One question I didn't see addressed in the original request is whether or not |deliveries= should be upgraded to |deliveries1= or similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the numbered deliveries parameters have a use, and are used to display numerical data. The previous usage of the (unnumbered) deliveries parameter was to describe what scale is being used for the numeric data. Spike 'em (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then,  Approved.. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:38, 21 March 2019 (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.