The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Approved.

Operator: Rich Farmbrough

Automatic or Manually assisted: auto

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available:

Function overview: Migrate to geoboxes 2

Edit period(s): One time

Estimated number of pages affected: For rivers about 8000, for other entities, not sure.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: Replace {Geobox xxxxxx with {Geobox | Xxxxxx

Purpose is to migrate the geoboxes to the new standard which works across a range of geographical features, providing consistent style, look and feel, unit conversion and so forth. Rich Farmbrough, 05:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You're migrating to a new type of geobox the community has decided to use? I assume this was discussed with the community (could you post a link? as a matter of course) and the new geobox worked on by community, so it seems a straight-forward bot appropriate task. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geobox river has an explanation as does Template:Geobox. The migration seemed to start in 2007/8 but the main author of the template left and it revrted to the normal template maintenance team. Rich Farmbrough, 19:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, as the old templates have been superseded, it's time to change. Experience bot operator, straight-forward task, imo, no issues to stop the task from going forward. --69.225.3.119 (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be possible to simply transclude the new template onto the old ones? (e.g. on Template:Geobox River transclude ((Geobox|river))) Or would the parameters make this too complex? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of claims of no server limits, it's generally better, imo, to replace defunct code than transclude it. Bots that simply replace defunct code, again, imo, are of major service to a dynamic encyclopedia, and, are the proper way to go. Transcluding is just sloppy when there are other options. That's my opinion. --69.225.3.119 (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talking generalities, I agree but I would support transclusion followed by replacement. Rich Farmbrough, 14:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Mr.Z-man 00:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll be back to this soon... lot of other matters on right now. Rich Farmbrough, 03:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

20 edits here. regards, Rich Farmbrough, 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Looks good -  Approved. Mr.Z-man 22:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.