Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MelonBot 12
- 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.
Automatic or Manually Assisted: supervised automatic
Programming Language(s): pywiki
Function Summary: converting {{cite web}}
templates to use |accessdate=
and |date=
consistently
Edit period(s): one time run
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function Details: Following from this discussion, and numerous others on that page, we conclude that the parameters |accessyear=
, |accessmonthday=
and |accessdaymonth=
are more trouble than they're worth. They were created in the days of date autoformatting to force a display in ymd or dmy format; now this is deprecated in favour of setting |dateformat=
in the template and passing the whole date in together as |accessdate=
. As such, it is a very clear-cut process to convert from one to the other:
- When the parameters
|accessdaymonth=
and|accessyear=
are present in an instance of{{cite web}}
, mash the two together into|accessdate=
and set|dateformat=dmy
- Else if the parameters
|accessmonthday=
and|accessyear=
are present, mash the two together into|accessdate=
and set|dateformat=mdy
This should cover 99% of the simple cases; there are only a manageable number of instances out there, but they are currently broken, so speed is a consideration.
Discussion
edit- I see no problem with this. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 23:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks simple enough, and as it's probably best to get these templates fixed ASAP:
Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Richard0612 16:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- done for your delight and delectation :D Happy‑melon 17:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks fine to me.
Approved. Richard0612 17:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks fine to me.
- done for your delight and delectation :D Happy‑melon 17:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks simple enough, and as it's probably best to get these templates fixed ASAP:
- 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.